The planner workflow completed. Verdict: no bug exists, no code changes made.
The task targeted a supposed off-by-one bug in p_org_task_lifecycle's loop_round check (> 3 should be >= 3). The planner independently re-verified and found:
src/org_loop_route.py:102already uses>= _LOOP_LIMIT(limit=3) — correct as-is.docs/sdd/04-P-流程与状态流转.md:20spec matches the implementation exactly.src/test_org_loop_route.py::LoopLimitTest.test_third_route_attempt_at_limit_blocks_and_raisesalready covers this exact boundary and passes.- The "bug" text traces back to a documentation example (
docs/self-development-feasibility.md, written 2026-07-30 for a PH5 self-hosting feasibility writeup), later reused verbatim as fixture text insupervisor/test_self_hosting_e2e.py's gatedRealSelfHostingClosedLoopTest— it was never a real defect report.
The produced PRD formally closes the task as "verified, no code change needed," with zero diffs to src/ or docs/sdd/, explicitly avoids triggering the RUN_REAL_SELF_HOSTING_E2E=1 gated closed-loop test (that requires separate explicit user authorization per its own docstring), and flags two open questions for human judgment: whether a real self-hosting closed-loop drill should still be run separately, and whether this PRD itself is the intended demonstration of the Planner's fact-checking capability.
No further action was taken — nothing to commit.