The planner work node finished investigating the suspected `loop_round > 3` off-by-one bug. Summary:

**Conclusion: the bug doesn't exist.** `src/org_loop_route.py:102` already uses `>= _LOOP_LIMIT` (limit=3), matching the spec text in `docs/sdd/04-P-流程与状态流转.md:20`. The `> 3` wording only appears in `docs/self-development-feasibility.md:50`, an explicitly-labeled hypothetical illustration for PH5 self-hosting feasibility — not a real bug report or the spec itself.

It produced a Benchmark-style verification document (scenario groups A/B/C — boundary tests at `loop_round=2/3`, cross-task isolation, `manual_resume`, and a doc/code consistency check), all backed by existing passing tests in `src/test_org_loop_route.py`. It flagged two minor, non-blocking coverage gaps (an explicit test at `loop_round=2`, and repeating the boundary check on the `full_replan` branch) as optional follow-ups, not new Development Units.

It also raised two open questions it deliberately left for a human decision rather than deciding unilaterally:
1. Should the gated real self-hosting E2E (`RUN_REAL_SELF_HOSTING_E2E=1`) be run? Its default recommendation: no — PH5 isn't in scope yet per CLAUDE.md, and there's no real bug to exercise it against.
2. Was "verified no bug exists" the desired outcome, or was the intent to hand it a real bug for a full fix-and-close loop? If the latter, this task shouldn't be considered closed — a new task with an actual defect description would be needed.

No code changes were made and no new Development Unit was created, since no real defect was found. Next step is up to the user: resolve the two open questions, or ask to fold the suggested test additions (A3/A4) into `src/test_org_loop_route.py` anyway.