# 2026-05-11 Fix Daemon Effect Server Bind Audit Summary

## Source

- Reviewed plan file: `docs/plans/2026-05-11-fix-daemon-effect-server-bind-audit.md`
- Document type: audit synthesis for `docs/plans/2026-05-11-fix-daemon-effect-server-bind.md`
- Main purpose: consolidate subagent audit results, route required plan amendments, record accepted informational findings, and define the next re-audit step.

## Plan Structure

- Header metadata: audited plan path, auditor count, scope of dispatched auditors, and partial audit status.
- Critical findings section: three Task 4 findings marked "Amend Plan", each with source provenance, rationale, and required plan change.
- Finding A deep dive: concurrency analysis for HTTP, IPC, and onboarding server Layer construction, including production and test impact, required architecture amendment, and required regression assertion.
- Findings B and C: small plan-edit requirements for an early-return deletion and a missing import note.
- Accepted informational findings: Task 4 findings that were explicitly accepted with no plan change needed.
- Incomplete audit section: Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5 did not produce final reports; the plan captures each partial investigation thread and requires fresh re-audit after amendments.
- Summary and routing: count table by action type and handoff to `superpowers:plan-audit-fixer`.
- Amendments applied section: post-fixer traceability table mapping each critical finding to the concrete amendment applied to the underlying plan.

## Information Types Communicated

- Audit provenance: source audit files, audited plan path, task numbers, and auditor dispatch scope.
- Audit status: partial completion, completed Task 4 audit, incomplete Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5, and process-only Tasks 6 and 7.
- Finding disposition: "Amend Plan", "Accept", and "Re-audit required".
- Severity and gating: Task 4 contains a critical blocker that must be amended before execution.
- Architectural reasoning: Effect Layer concurrency, `Layer.mergeAll`, `Layer.provideMerge`, Ref read/write ordering, and server bind sequencing.
- Impact analysis: why default production port hides the issue, why `--port 0` exposes it, and why the existing TLS test would miss it.
- Required amendments: structural Tier 3 sequencing change, test assertion addition, explicit code deletion instruction, and import-note addition.
- Test intent: fetch `/api/setup-info` and assert `httpsUrl` contains the actual bound HTTPS port.
- Accepted evidence: informational audit conclusions that should not alter the plan but explain why adjacent concerns are out of scope or already safe.
- Partial investigation notes: unfinished auditor traces that preserve useful leads without treating them as findings.
- Routing and workflow state: handoff to a fixer, then re-dispatch of selected auditors.
- Amendment history: applied amendment log tying findings to updated plan steps and renumbered steps.

## Fit To Existing Formula Parts

- `epic`: Fits the whole audit hardening effort around the source implementation plan.
- `global-contract`: Fits audited plan path, audit status, execution gating, out-of-scope process tasks, and the rule that incomplete audits must be rerun after amendments.
- `architecture`: Fits Finding A's server bind sequencing contract and the required `Layer.provideMerge` ordering.
- `policy`: Fits audit disposition rules, re-audit policy, and the requirement that the plan not rely on the compiler to discover known edits.
- `parent`: Partially fits task-level groupings, especially Task 4 amendment work and the re-audit group for Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5.
- `child`: Fits the concrete amendment units: restructure Tier 3, extend the regression test, delete the stale early return, and add the import note. The plan does not provide full child work-packet fields.
- `checkpoint`: Fits "do not execute until amended" and "re-audit Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5 after fixer handoff". The regression test can also be represented as checkpoint verification.
- `fixture`: Weak fit. The plan names source audit files and prior partial traces, but it does not define test fixtures or refreshable fixture provenance.
- `pilot`: No meaningful fit. The plan does not describe a trial implementation or measurement pilot.
- `followup-template`: Partial fit for re-running the incomplete audits from original audit briefs, but the source does not contain reusable follow-up prompt templates.
- `work-packet` snippet: Partial fit for required amendments, but missing fields such as allowed files, forbidden files, red command, expected failure, green scope, and failure conditions.
- `subagent-launch` snippet: Partial fit for auditor dispatch and re-dispatch routing, but the source captures outcomes and incomplete traces more than launch prompts.
- `handoff-note` snippet: Strong fit for the routing, amendment summary, and re-audit handoff state.

## Gaps / Schema Additions

- Add an audit finding contract snippet. Useful fields: finding id, source audit path, target task or step, disposition, severity, evidence, impact, required amendment, accepted rationale, and amendment status.
- Add an audit synthesis or review-report role. This document is neither a normal implementation parent nor a checkpoint; it is a durable review artifact that summarizes findings, decisions, and next routing.
- Add a subagent result or audit-run role. The plan records dispatched auditors, tool-budget failures, partial traces, and incomplete reports. Current `subagent-launch` covers launch shape, not returned audit state.
- Add an amendment log contract snippet. The "Amendments Applied" table needs structured traceability from finding to plan patch, renumbered steps, changed assertions, and post-fixer status.
- Extend checkpoint metadata for review fanout. Current checkpoint semantics cover validation and readiness, but this plan needs "rerun these auditors with original briefs after these findings are fixed".
- Add a non-actionable finding record. Accepted findings matter as durable negative evidence, but they should not become executable children or follow-ups.
- Add evidence/provenance fields beyond `sourcePlan`. This audit points at source audit files and code locations; those references need a first-class home if later beads should preserve review evidence.

## Notes For Combined Summary

- This file is a strong example of audit and review orchestration content, not only implementation planning content.
- Current formula roles can represent the executable amendment work, the architectural contract, and the re-audit checkpoint, but they flatten important review-state details.
- The biggest schema pressure comes from findings, audit-run outcomes, amendment traceability, accepted non-actionable evidence, and re-audit fanout.
- Combined analysis should distinguish implementation plans from audit synthesis plans. Audit synthesis plans need durable review metadata even when they produce only a few executable child beads.
