# Review: Step 2 plan

Verdict: **approved**.

The Step 2 plan is appropriate for the current tree. Step 1 verified that Conflict A has already been resolved by the roadmap-phase path: the PRD describes the analyzer family as planned v0.6 scope, the ROADMAP contains a concrete `v0.6 — Analyzers` phase, the generated catalog remains the current registered-tool source of truth, and no analyzer tools are registered in code/catalog surfaces.

What is strong:

- The plan treats the prompt's original conflict state as stale and avoids unnecessary PRD/ROADMAP churn.
- Recording the already-selected roadmap-phase decision in `STATUS.md` is the right Step 2 action because the task acceptance criteria require the decision and rationale to be documented, even when no content edit is now needed.
- Re-verifying that PRD/ROADMAP still lack stale `~39 tools` wording and still keep analyzers out of the current generated catalog is the right guard before marking Conflict A resolved.

Execution notes, not blockers:

- In the Step 2 `Resolution:` section, explicitly name the decision as option **(b) add/keep roadmap phase**, and explain why it is acceptable despite the prompt's recommendation for option (a): the current tree already has a scoped v0.6 analyzer phase and PRD wording that says analyzers are planned, not registered today.
- Include the key evidence lines in the resolution, especially `docs/prd/PRD-icuvisor.md:286` and `ROADMAP.md:82`, plus the absence of analyzer constructors/entries in `internal/tools/catalog.go`, `internal/tools/registry.go`, and `web/data/tools.json`.
- Do not convert this back to option (a) unless a human explicitly wants to undo the existing v0.6 roadmap phase.

No plan changes are required before executing Step 2.
