Analysis complete. Confirmed the full picture:

**Phase 2/3 — Drift confirmed:**

| Aspect | fn-9.1 spec said | Actually built (`src/api/serialize.py:2`) |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Wire id key | `user_id` | `uid` |

The completed task's done summary self-reports it: shipped `uid` for payload-size reasons. Parent spec fn-9 names no specific key (R1 is generic "round-trips a user record"), so no parent-spec drift.

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

**Phase 4 — Downstream fn-9.2** hard-codes the stale key in its Expected-payload block (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md:11` → `{"user_id": 7, "name": "ada"}`). Its acceptance ("SDK reads the id from the wire dict") will fail against the real `uid` wire schema. Flagged.

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

**Phase 5 — DRY_RUN true**, report only. Parent spec fn-9.md has no `## Requirement coverage` table → traceability sub-step skipped. No R-ID changes (only R1 exists; rename doesn't alter coverage).

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 shipped wire key `uid` instead of the spec's `user_id` (`src/api/serialize.py:2`), confirmed by its own done summary.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- fn-9.2 (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md`): change the Expected-payload JSON key `user_id` → `uid` (line 11 → `{"uid": 7, "name": "ada"}`), preserving surrounding prose; append breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used uid not user_id -->`.

No traceability table in fn-9.md → no coverage changes.
No glossary renames, decision overrides, or strategy drift (husk short-circuit).
No files modified.