Confirmed. I have everything needed. Let me lay out the analysis.

**Phase 1 — Completed task (fn-9.1).** Spec: cache results *in process memory* (module-level dict, no persistence, no writes outside the process); file `src/cache/store.py`; acceptance "results are served from process memory." Done summary: persisted results to a **JSON file on disk** instead, so they survive restarts. Evidence commit `c9b8351`.

**Phase 2 — Actual code.** `src/cache/store.py` imports `json`, defines `PATH = "var/results.json"`, and `put()` writes the data to that file with `json.dump`. Confirms disk persistence, not a module-level dict.

**Phase 3 — Drift.**

| Aspect | Spec said | Actually built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Storage | in-process module-level dict | JSON file on disk (`var/results.json`) |
| Persistence | none; dropped on restart | survives restarts |
| Writes | none outside process | writes `var/results.json` |

**Phase 3b — Husk short-circuit applies** (`GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}`). Entire section skipped.

**Phase 4 — Downstream (fn-9.2).** Its description encodes a now-stale assumption sourced directly from fn-9.1's planned behavior: *"results live in process memory and are dropped on restart; render whatever the current process computed."* The implementation contradicts this — results are disk-persisted and outlive the process. The acceptance criterion "weekly report renders the current run only" rests on the same dropped-on-restart premise.

**Phase 4b —** CROSS_SPEC false → skipped.

**Phase 5 —** DRY_RUN true → report only, no edits. Parent spec `fn-9.md` has no `## Requirement coverage` table → traceability sub-step skipped. The stale *assumption sentence* is a reference to fn-9.1's storage behavior (in-scope to update). The acceptance criterion is a requirement — surfaced, not auto-rewritten (DO-NOT: change requirements / remove acceptance criteria).

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 persisted results to a JSON file on disk (`var/results.json`, via `json.dump` in `src/cache/store.py`) instead of the spec'd in-process module-level dict; results now survive restarts and write outside the process.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- **fn-9.2** (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md`) — stale assumption sentence: replace *"The generator assumes results live in process memory and are dropped on restart; render whatever the current process computed."* with wording reflecting that fn-9.1 persists results to a JSON file on disk (`var/results.json`) that survive restarts. Add breadcrumb: `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 persisted results to JSON file on disk (var/results.json) not process memory -->`

Flagged for human review (requirement — not auto-edited):
- **fn-9.2** acceptance criterion *"weekly report renders the current run only"* is premised on the dropped-on-restart behavior that no longer holds (persisted results include prior runs). Left unchanged because it's a requirement, not a reference; revisit whether fn-9.2 should still scope to the current run or render from the persisted store.

Would update traceability: none — parent spec `fn-9.md` has no `## Requirement coverage` table; R1 unaffected, no R-IDs renumbered.

No files modified.