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:102` already uses `>= _LOOP_LIMIT` (limit=3) — correct as-is.
- `docs/sdd/04-P-流程与状态流转.md:20` spec matches the implementation exactly.
- `src/test_org_loop_route.py::LoopLimitTest.test_third_route_attempt_at_limit_blocks_and_raises` already 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 in `supervisor/test_self_hosting_e2e.py`'s gated `RealSelfHostingClosedLoopTest` — 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.