Confirmed. Actual code is `alpha_handler_v2`; spec/plan said `alpha_handler`.

**Phase 3 — Drift:**

| Aspect | Spec Said | Actually Built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Handler name | `alpha_handler` | `alpha_handler_v2` |
| Return | ok-dict | `{"ok": True, "who": request}` (ok-dict — matches intent) |

**Phase 3b — skipped** (husk short-circuit: `GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}` all hold — no project-anchor signal).

**Phase 4 — Downstream (fn-9.2):** references `alpha_handler` at line 8 ("Call alpha_handler from `main()`...") — stale; real symbol is `alpha_handler_v2`. The `ok` flag it prints still exists in the return dict, so no drift there.

**Phase 4b — skipped** (`CROSS_SPEC` = false).

**Phase 5 — Traceability:** parent spec `fn-9.md` has no `## Requirement coverage` table → skip. Note: `fn-9.md` line 9 also says `alpha_handler`, but per the Rules `.flow/specs/*.md` edits are restricted to the traceability table only, so the Approach prose is left as-is (planning-intent record). DRY_RUN = true → no edits.

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 implemented `alpha_handler_v2` instead of the planned `alpha_handler` (v1 name reserved by a legacy shim, per done summary; confirmed in `src/auth/handler.py`)

Would update (DRY RUN):
- fn-9.2: Change `alpha_handler` → `alpha_handler_v2` in the description ("Call `alpha_handler_v2` from `main()`..."); add breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used alpha_handler_v2 not alpha_handler -->`. The printed `ok` flag is unchanged (return dict still exposes `ok`).

Would update traceability:
- None (no `## Requirement coverage` table in fn-9.md)

No files modified.