I have everything needed. Let me consolidate the analysis before writing the Phase 6 summary.

**Phase 3 — Drift (fn-9.1):**

| Aspect | Spec said | Actually built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Signature | `dispatch(job)` "accepts a priority" | `dispatch(job, priority=0)` |
| Return shape | bare `job` (implied) | `(priority, job)` tuple |

The done summary itself flags it: the return **shape** changed beyond the task wording.

**Phase 3b — Husk short-circuit:** `total_terms=0` AND `count=0` AND `STRATEGY_CONTENT={}` → all three husk → Phase 3b skipped entirely. No glossary/decision/strategy signals.

**Phase 4 — Downstream same-spec (fn-9.2):** Generic doc task ("document the dispatcher", `src/docs/notes.py`). No literal stale token in its text, but its whole purpose is documenting the dispatcher whose return shape changed — an awareness note is warranted so the notes describe the real `(priority, job)` tuple.

**Phase 4b — Cross-spec (fn-10, open):** `.flow/specs/fn-10.md` Approach names `src/pipeline/dispatch.py` and asserts "the runner treats its return value as the job itself" — a clear, concrete, now-false integration assumption (return is now a tuple). fn-10 has **no task files**; the stale assumption lives in spec Approach prose.

**Traceability:** fn-9.md has no `## Requirement coverage` table → skip.

---

Drift detected: yes
- **fn-9.1** `src/pipeline/dispatch.py`: implemented as `dispatch(job, priority=0)` returning a `(priority, job)` tuple instead of the bare `job`. Return shape changed beyond the task wording (confirmed by done summary + evidence commit `b3e2262`).

Would update (DRY RUN):
- **fn-9.2** (same spec, `.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md`): doc task "document the dispatcher." No literal stale token to swap, but the drift is material to what it documents — would add an awareness breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: dispatch returns (priority, job) tuple, not bare job (fn-9.1) -->` so the notes document the actual return shape. Scope/acceptance unchanged.
- **fn-10** (cross-spec, `.flow/specs/fn-10.md`, status: open): Approach asserts "the runner treats its return value as the job itself" — now false. Would correct the assumption to reflect the `(priority, job)` tuple return and add `<!-- Updated by plan-sync (cross-spec): fn-9.1 changed dispatch return to (priority, job) tuple -->`. Caveat: fn-10 has no task files, and the stale reference sits in spec Approach prose (outside a `## Requirement coverage` table), so under a live run this is surfaced for review rather than a clean auto-edit target per the "specs = traceability table only" edit rule.

Would update traceability: none — fn-9.md has no `## Requirement coverage` table.

Decision overrides flagged for review: none (DECISIONS_JSON empty).

Strategy drift flagged for review: none (STRATEGY_CONTENT husk/empty).

No files modified (DRY_RUN=true).