Session Handoff — B4 done, Framework rebooting (2026-07-08, Fable 5)

Leo is rebooting the Framework Desktop. This note is for whichever session picks up next — read this first, then CLAUDE.md's current-state line (kept in sync, has the fuller picture).

Exact resumption point

• Repo state: working tree clean, HEAD = 0cfe5bd (B4 close-out commit). Nothing uncommitted, nothing mid-flight.
• Compose stack: confirmed DOWN (docker compose ps empty) — Task 8 tore it down after its smoke test. Bring it up (cd app && docker compose up -d --build) before Leo does his live verification walkthrough, it won't survive the reboot on its own.
• B4 is fully executed, reviewed, and documented — awaiting Leo's own live-walkthrough verification. Not yet marked "verified ✅" anywhere (that's his step, not mine). Status board: Plans/README.md. Full decisions/deviations: Plans/B4-catalog-softness-terms.md's "Decisions & deviations" section (bottom of file). Task-by-task review ledger: .superpowers/sdd/progress.md (B3's archived at progress-B3-archive.md in the same dir).

What happens next, in priority order

1. Leo verifies B4 live — opens the app, adds a catalog line, a billboard-week line, marks value-add, sets a discount, fills terms/notes, confirms totals. Same pattern as every prior stage. Nothing for an agent to do here except bring the stack up if asked.
2. Lisa supplies the real due-upon-receipt terms text. Currently a visible placeholder in terms_templates (admin-editable at /admin/terms). This is a content gap, not a bug — don't invent legal text to fill it. Independent of B5; can land whenever it lands.
3. B5 (finalize & sea of red) needs a Fable design review before implementation starts, not just a post-hoc code review — standing recommendation from Plans/phase-a-review.md, reaffirmed in Plans/b-phase-handoff.md's "B5 scope warning" (transactional finalize, oversell-impossible-by-construction, un-finalize, amend-in-place — the highest-risk stage in the project). Do not start writing the B5 plan or any B5 code without that design pass happening first, even if Leo says "go for B5" the same way he said "go for B4" — B4 didn't carry this same warning, B5 explicitly does.

Two things worth knowing about how this session actually ran

• The dedicated task-reviewer subagent pattern (a fresh subagent whose only job is to review another agent's diff) was unreliable all session — every dispatch returned only idle_notification pings with no report content, both for B3's remaining tasks and all of B4's. The working fallback, used for all 15 tasks across B3+B4: the controller (me) reads the diff/report/brief directly and performs the review itself, same rigor, no subagent round-trip. If you hit the same relay issue, don't keep retrying the subagent dispatch — switch to direct review immediately, it's not worth the wasted turns.
• Real content verification matters more than trusting implementer claims. Two examples from this session: an implementer's "gofmt failures are pre-existing" claim got independently checked against the pre-task commit (true); a suspected "hardcoded test date will break tomorrow" bug got investigated and found to be a non-issue because the fake store ignores date-range params entirely (also true, but the first instinct — flag it as a bug — would have been wrong). Verify claims that are cheap to check, especially anything time-sensitive or "the reviewer said so."

Where everything lives

• Plan: Plans/B4-catalog-softness-terms.md (2,300+ lines — migration SQL, exact code, domain decisions, acceptance checklist all ticked, decisions & deviations)
• Commit trail: d2e82ce → 8fd40c9 (7 feature commits, one per task) → 0cfe5bd (close-out docs)
• SDD ledger: .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
• Task briefs/reports (if useful for forensics): .superpowers/sdd/task-{1..8}-{brief,report}.md