Analysis complete. All signals confirmed. Here is the Phase 6 summary.

---

Drift detected: yes

**Completed task fn-9.1** executed exactly as its own spec planned — a mechanical relocation, verified against the live tree:
- `src/mod/alpha.py` → `src/core/alpha_core.py` (confirmed: new file exists with `def entry()`, old path is gone).
- This is planned relocation drift: fn-9.1 matched its spec, but it moved a file that the downstream task fn-9.2 still points at. fn-9.2's own body even flags this — "*written before the relocation landed*".

**Phase 3b (glossary / decisions / strategy):** skipped via husk short-circuit — `GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, and `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}`. No project-anchor signal to align to.

**Phase 4b (cross-spec):** skipped — `CROSS_SPEC` is false.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- **fn-9.2** (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md:6`): change `**Files:** ` `src/mod/alpha.py` → `` `src/core/alpha_core.py` `` — module was relocated by fn-9.1. Add breadcrumb: `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used src/core/alpha_core.py not src/mod/alpha.py -->`.

Not touched (correct as-is):
- `.flow/specs/fn-9.md` — line 9 names the old path only inside the historical relocation narrative ("fn-9.1 relocates src/mod/alpha.py to src/core/alpha_core.py"); R1 already says "under src/core/". Accurate, not stale.
- `.flow/tasks/fn-9.1.md` — the completed task itself; correctly documents the move.

Would update traceability: none — fn-9 spec has an `## Acceptance Criteria` section but no `## Requirement coverage` table, so the traceability sub-step is skipped.

R-IDs: no `satisfies` change — the drift is a file-path reference only and does not change what fn-9.2 covers (extending the module); no `satisfies` added to this refactor-adjacent task.

Decision overrides flagged for review: none.
Strategy drift flagged for review: none.

No files modified.