Phases 2–4 complete. Here's my analysis.

**Actual implementation (`src/cache/store.py`):**
```python
import json
PATH = "var/results.json"
def put(key, value):
    data = {key: value}
    with open(PATH, "w") as fh:
        json.dump(data, fh)
```
Writes JSON to disk at `var/results.json` via `put(key, value)`. No in-process dict. Survives restart.

**Spec required:** in-process module-level dict, no persistence, dropped on restart. → **Drift confirmed.**

**Phase 3b:** Husk short-circuit — `GLOSSARY_JSON.total_terms == 0`, `DECISIONS_JSON.count == 0`, `STRATEGY_CONTENT == {}`. All three husk → entire Phase 3b skipped.

**Phase 4 (fn-9.2):** Its description hard-codes the now-false premise — "results live in process memory and are dropped on restart; render whatever the current process computed" — and its acceptance "renders the current run only" is built on that premise. Directly affected by the drift.

**Phase 4b:** CROSS_SPEC=false → skipped. **Traceability:** parent spec fn-9 has no `## Requirement coverage` table → skipped.

---

Drift detected: yes
- fn-9.1 persisted results to disk instead of process memory: `src/cache/store.py` writes `var/results.json` via `put(key, value)` (module-level `PATH`, `json.dump`). No in-process module-level dict. The store now survives restarts; the spec required process-memory-only, dropped on restart.

Would update (DRY RUN):
- fn-9.2 (`.flow/tasks/fn-9.2.md`): the description's data-structure/integration assumption — "The generator assumes results live in process memory and are dropped on restart" — is stale. Would rewrite it to reflect actual: results are persisted to disk at `var/results.json` and survive restart. Would add breadcrumb `<!-- Updated by plan-sync: fn-9.1 used on-disk var/results.json not in-process memory -->`.

Flagged for review (requirement-level — NOT auto-edited):
- fn-9.2 acceptance criterion "weekly report renders the current run only" now conflicts with fn-9.1's persistent on-disk store (results survive restart, so prior runs stay readable). This is a scope/requirement decision, not a stale reference — surfaced for human review rather than rewritten or removed (per Phase 5 "DO NOT change requirements / remove acceptance criteria").

Observations (out of edit scope, not proposed as edits):
- Parent spec fn-9 `## Approach` line "fn-9.1 keeps results in process memory" is also stale, but spec edits are restricted to a `## Requirement coverage` table (none here), so no edit proposed. Spec R1 ("renders from cached results") is unaffected — still holds.

Would update traceability: none (no `## Requirement coverage` table in fn-9).
Decision overrides flagged for review: none (no decision entries).
Strategy drift flagged for review: none (STRATEGY_CONTENT husk).

No files modified (DRY_RUN=true).