I have everything needed. The implementation is a faithful parity port matching the spec exactly. Let me confirm my drift analysis against the two downstream tasks.

**Verification summary of what I found in the actual code (commit d5c58042, `plugins/flow-next/scripts/flowctl.py`):**

| Aspect | Spec/task .2 said | Actually built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Handlers | `cmd_cursor_*` (mirror copilot) | `cmd_cursor_check/impl_review/plan_review/completion_review/validate/deep_pass` ✓ |
| Runner | `run_cursor_exec(prompt, session_id=None, *, spec, repo_root)` | identical signature + `-p --output-format json --trust --mode ask --model <m> [--resume]`, `cwd=repo_root`, timeout=600 ✓ |
| Subcommands | check/impl-review/plan-review/completion-review/validate/deep-pass | all six present in `cursor_sub` parser ✓ |
| Registry | `default_model: gpt-5.5-high`, `efforts: None` | exact ✓ |
| Receipts | `mode:"cursor"`, `spec:"cursor:<model>"`, **no `effort`** | mode/model/spec present, `effort` absent (contrast copilot which writes it) ✓ |
| Session | resume-only, guard on prior `mode=="cursor"` | `receipt_data.get("mode") == "cursor"` guard, no uuid fallback ✓ |
| Triage | stays `codex\|copilot` | unchanged ✓ |

Downstream tasks `.3` (skill/setup wiring + codex mirror) and `.4` (docs) reference the handler names, subcommand names, `mode:"cursor"` receipt shape, and `gpt-5.5-high` default — **every one matches the built code**. The `--review=rp|codex|copilot|none` literals and `REVIEW_MODE` string in `.3` are *additions* it will make, not stale references from `.2`.

**Phase 3b:** Glossary has 38 terms but every entry's `avoid` list is empty → no rename signal. Both decision entries (factory-droid platforms.md; tracker-sync projection) name concrete code refs, but fn-74.2 touched only `flowctl.py` — zero file overlap, no contradiction. Strategy: the cursor backend *aligns* with the Cross-platform-parity / cross-model-review tracks and holds the zero-dep contract (opt-in shell-out, same as codex/copilot; no SaaS/dashboard/dep added) → no drift, no track rename.

**Traceability table:** parent spec's `### Requirement coverage` table row for R8 (`.2 (live test) · .1 (--mode ask flag)`) matches actual — no scope change → no update.

---

Drift detected: no

- fn-74…cli.2 was a faithful parity port of the `copilot` backend. Every name, signature, subcommand, registry field, and receipt shape the downstream tasks reference matches the built code in `flowctl.py` (commit d5c58042).

Would update (DRY RUN):
- None. No stale references in fn-74…cli.3 or fn-74…cli.4.

Would update traceability (DRY RUN):
- None. The `### Requirement coverage` table already reflects actual coverage (R8 split `.2` live test / `.1` `--mode ask` flag).

Decision overrides flagged for review:
- None. Neither active decision (`factory-droid-platform-status`, `tracker-sync-is-projection`) names a file the completed task touched; the task modified only `plugins/flow-next/scripts/flowctl.py`.

## Strategy drift flagged for review
- None. The cursor review backend aligns with the Cross-platform-parity and cross-model-review tracks and preserves the zero-external-dependency approach (opt-in subprocess backend, no new flowctl imports, no SaaS/hosted surface).

No files modified (DRY_RUN=true).