I have everything needed. Let me record the drift analysis.

**Phase 2–4 findings:** The completed task `.2` is a pure parity port and landed exactly as the spec prescribed. Every surface downstream tasks depend on matches the built code:

| Aspect | Spec/task said | Actually built |
|--------|----------------|----------------|
| Backend key | `cursor` | `cursor` (registry L3527) ✓ |
| Subcommands | check / impl-review / plan-review / completion-review / validate / deep-pass | all present (cursor subparser L27155+) ✓ |
| Handlers | `cmd_cursor_*` | `cmd_cursor_check/_impl_review/_plan_review/_completion_review/_validate/_deep_pass` ✓ |
| Helper | `run_cursor_exec`, `require_cursor`, `get_cursor_version` | all present (L4032/4040/4126) ✓ |
| Receipt mode | `mode:"cursor"`, no `effort` | `"mode": "cursor"` (6 sites); `efforts: None` ✓ |
| Default model | `gpt-5.5-high` | `default_model: "gpt-5.5-high"` ✓ |

**Phase 3b:** all three inputs have signal (no husk short-circuit). 3b.1 — every one of the 38 glossary entries has an empty `avoid` list, so no alias renames possible. 3b.2 — both decisions are unrelated to the change: `factory-droid-platform-status` names `platforms.md`/SKILL.md/hooks.json/sync-codex.sh (none is the flowctl.py cursor code `.2` touched), and `tracker-sync-is-projection` is `module: strategy` about tracker sync — the cursor review backend contradicts neither. 3b.3 — the cursor backend *aligns* with the cross-model-review track and the lean-flowctl approach (it's the sanctioned second-model reviewer pattern, mirroring codex/copilot, no SaaS, opt-in local CLI); no track contradiction and no `### <track>` H3 rename candidate in the spec.

**Phase 4:** downstream `.3` (skill/setup wiring + codex mirror) and `.4` (docs chain) reference only the stable public surface — subcommand names, `cmd_cursor_*`, `--review=rp|codex|copilot|none` literals, setup form `cursor:gpt-5.5-high`, receipt `mode` gains `cursor`, default model `gpt-5.5-high`. All match the built code; no stale references. Parent spec's `### Requirement coverage` table already records `.2`'s coverage (R5/R6/R7/R8/R11/R14) accurately — task scope unchanged, no traceability edit warranted. Phase 4b skipped (CROSS_SPEC=false).

---

Drift detected: no
- fn-74-cursor-review-backend-cursor-agent-cli.2 is a faithful parity port of the `copilot` backend; implementation names/APIs match the spec verbatim (backend key `cursor`, five subcommands + `check`, `cmd_cursor_*` handlers, `run_cursor_exec`, `mode:"cursor"` receipts with no `effort` key, default model `gpt-5.5-high`).

Would update (DRY RUN):
- None. Downstream tasks `.3` and `.4` reference only the stable public surface, all of which landed as specified. No stale references to correct.

Would update traceability:
- None. The parent spec's `### Requirement coverage` table already maps R5/R6/R7/R8/R11/R14 to `.2` correctly; task scope did not drift.

Decision overrides flagged for review:
- None. Neither active decision (`factory-droid-platform-status`, `tracker-sync-is-projection`) names code the completed task touched, nor is contradicted by it.

Strategy drift flagged for review:
- None. The cursor review backend aligns with the cross-model-review track and the lean-flowctl / host-agent-is-the-intelligence approach; no track contradiction detected.

No files modified (DRY_RUN=true).