Both decisions are non-contradicted:
- **Factory Droid decision** — its Solution/Consequences name concrete refs (`flow-next-capture/SKILL.md`, `hooks/hooks.json`, `sync-codex.sh:206`, `docs/platforms.md`, `CLAUDE.md`). Task .1 touched only `flowctl.py` + two test files — zero overlap, and the cursor foundation touches no cross-platform scaffolding. No override.
- **Tracker-sync-projection decision** — Consequences name tracker-sync/make-pr/land/Linear. Task .1's `flowctl.py` change adds a review backend, unrelated to tracker projection; no contradicting direction. No override.

For 3b.3 (strategy drift): active tracks are v1.0 vocabulary / spec-driven team patterns / Ralph autonomous mode / flow-swarm prep / TUI / Cross-platform parity / Self-improving. The cursor backend *aligns* with cross-model review and mirrors the existing `codex`/`copilot` shell-out backends (flowctl core never imports cursor-agent — subprocess only), so the "zero external dependencies / no SaaS" approach holds. No track contradicted; the spec's `###` headers are spec-internal (Strategy Alignment / Requirement coverage / Dogfood), not strategy-track aliases. No drift, no track rename.

Phase 4 (downstream check): I compared the actual `run_cursor_exec(prompt, session_id=None, *, spec=None, repo_root) -> (result_text, session_id, exit_code, stderr)`, the `cursor` registry entry (models set, `efforts: None`, `default_model: "gpt-5.5-high"`), `CURSOR_ARGV_PROMPT_MAX`, and `cmd_cursor_check`/`cursor check` against what .2/.3/.4 reference. Everything matches the spec verbatim — the receipt `mode:"cursor"` fields .2 builds are .2's own work, not a stale .1 reference. Phase 4b skipped (CROSS_SPEC false). The parent spec's `### Requirement coverage` table already maps R1–R4/R11 to .1 correctly; no drift → no table change.

---

Drift detected: no

**Phase 1–2 (re-anchor + explore):** Task `.1` (`fn-74…cli.1`, commit `dcbb1a7e`) built the cursor review-backend foundation in `plugins/flow-next/scripts/flowctl.py` + `test_cursor_run_exec.py` + `test_backend_spec.py`. Verified the actual code against the spec:
- `BACKEND_REGISTRY["cursor"]` — model set, `efforts: None`, `default_model: "gpt-5.5-high"` — matches spec exactly (all 10 model strings identical).
- `run_cursor_exec(prompt, session_id=None, *, spec=None, repo_root) -> tuple[str, str, int, str]` — signature, return-tuple order, `cwd=repo_root`, `--trust --mode ask`, resume-only session, positional-argv delivery, `CURSOR_ARGV_PROMPT_MAX` prompt-too-large raise, `timeout=600` — all match the API contract.
- `require_cursor` / `get_cursor_version` / `_parse_cursor_result` / `cmd_cursor_check` + `cursor check [--skip-probe]` subparser — names and shapes as specced.

**Phase 3 / 3b (drift + project-anchor signals):**
- No implementation drift — clean parity port; no names/APIs/signatures/data structures diverged from what .2/.3/.4 assume.
- 3b.1 glossary: every `GLOSSARY_JSON` entry has `avoid: []` → no rename signal.
- 3b.2 decisions: 2 active entries, neither's committed code refs intersect the 3 files task .1 touched, no contradicting direction → no override.
- 3b.3 strategy: cursor backend aligns with cross-model review + the codex/copilot shell-out precedent → no track contradicted, no track rename.

**Phase 4 / 5:** Downstream tasks `.2`, `.3`, `.4` reference only `run_cursor_exec`, the `cursor` registry entry, the `cmd_cursor_*` convention, and the `check` subcommand — all present and matching. No stale references.

Would update (DRY RUN): nothing.
Would update traceability: nothing (`### Requirement coverage` table already correct: R1/R2/R3/R4→.1, R11→.1,.2).
Decision overrides flagged for review: none.
Strategy drift flagged for review: none.

No files modified (DRY_RUN=true; no drift found regardless).