Phase 3 complete. I have a clear picture. Let me record the drift analysis.

**Phase 1 (re-anchor):** fn-9.1 spec said implement `alpha_handler(request)` in `src/auth/handler.py` returning an ok-dict. Done summary states it shipped as `alpha_handler_v2` (v1 name reserved by a legacy shim). Evidence commit: `081606c`.

**Phase 2 (actual impl):** `src/auth/handler.py` → `def alpha_handler_v2(request): return {"ok": True, "who": request}`. Returns an ok-dict as spec'd — only the **name** drifted.

**Phase 3 (drift):**

| Aspect | Spec Said | Actually Built |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Handler name | `alpha_handler` | `alpha_handler_v2` |
| Return | ok-dict | `{"ok": True, "who": request}` (matches) |

**Phase 3b:** Husk short-circuit — `GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}`. All three hold → entire Phase 3b skipped. No glossary renames, decision overrides, or strategy drift to evaluate.

**Phase 4 (downstream):** fn-9.2 line 8 — "Call **alpha_handler** from `main()` and print the ok flag." — references the stale name. Needs the rename. (Return-shape assumption "ok flag" still valid — code has an `ok` key.)

**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. Note: `fn-9.md:9` (Approach narrative) also names `alpha_handler`, but it describes the already-completed fn-9.1 and spec edits are restricted to the traceability table — flagged as observation, not a proposed edit.

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 shipped `alpha_handler_v2` instead of the spec'd `alpha_handler` (v1 name reserved by a legacy shim; per done summary). Return value is still an ok-dict, so only the name drifted.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- **fn-9.2** (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md:8`): Change `Call alpha_handler from main()` → `Call alpha_handler_v2 from main()`; add breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used alpha_handler_v2 not alpha_handler -->`. Prose/scope otherwise preserved ("print the ok flag" still valid — `ok` key present).

Would NOT change:
- Parent spec `fn-9.md:9` Approach line names `alpha_handler`, but it describes completed fn-9.1 and spec edits are restricted to the traceability table — surfaced as an observation only.
- fn-9.1's own spec (lines 3, 10) — completed task; its done summary already reconciles the rename.

Skipped:
- Traceability update — no `## Requirement coverage` table in `fn-9.md`.
- Phase 3b (glossary/decisions/strategy) — husk short-circuit (all three inputs empty).
- Cross-spec (Phase 4b) — CROSS_SPEC=false.

No decision overrides flagged. No strategy drift flagged.

No files modified.