Analysis complete. Let me lay out my findings against the phases.

**Phase 1–2 (re-anchor + actual impl):** fn-9.1's spec called for a helper named `parse` in `src/reader.py`. The done summary and the code (`src/reader.py:1` → `def read(line): return line`, evidence commit `84755d5`) confirm it shipped as `read`.

**Phase 3 (drift):**

| Aspect | Spec Said | Actually Built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Helper name | `parse` | `read` |

**Phase 3b:** Husk short-circuit applies — `GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, and `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}`. Entire section skipped; no decision/strategy/glossary signal to surface.

**Phase 4 (downstream fn-9.2):** One stale reference — `.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md:8` says "Feed each line through the **parse** helper". The actual helper is `read`. Acceptance line 11 ("the helper output") is name-agnostic, no change needed. Files field (`src/cli/table.py`) matches reality.

**Phase 4b:** CROSS_SPEC=false → skipped.

**Phase 5:** Parent spec `.flow/specs/fn-9.md` has no `## Requirement coverage` table → traceability sub-step skipped. R1 and the Approach line don't reference `parse` → no parent-spec drift. `satisfies` frontmatter left untouched (a rename doesn't change what fn-9.2 covers). DRY_RUN=true → report only, no edits.

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 shipped the helper as `read` instead of the spec's `parse` (src/reader.py; commit 84755d5). The task's own done summary already records this.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- fn-9.2 (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md:8`): change "the **parse** helper" → "the **read** helper", preserving surrounding prose, with breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used read not parse -->`

Would update traceability:
- None — parent spec fn-9 has no `## Requirement coverage` table.

No files modified.