CLAUDE CODE AGENTS: ADVANCED ORCHESTRATION - Chapter 6, Exercise 3
Implementing an Old Plan After Its Assumptions Changed
====================================================================================

QUESTION:
A plan was approved two weeks ago, but before implementation began, an
unrelated change significantly altered one of the systems the plan assumed
would stay the same. A developer decides to implement the original plan
exactly as written anyway. Using this chapter's own warning box, explain
the risk here.

SOLUTION / EXPLANATION:

This chapter's warning box is explicit that a plan is a snapshot based on
what was known at the time it was written, not a permanent guarantee -
and states directly that if the codebase changes meaningfully between
planning and implementation, the plan itself may need revisiting rather
than followed blindly.

That is precisely the situation described here: the plan was built on an
understanding of a particular system that has since changed significantly.
The plan's proposed approach, its identification of which files are
involved, and its stated tradeoffs were all reasoned out based on how that
system worked at the time the plan was approved - none of that reasoning
automatically accounts for whatever changed afterward, since the planning
agent had no way to know about a change that hadn't happened yet.

Implementing the plan exactly as written, without revisiting it in light of
the change, risks building against assumptions that are no longer
accurate. The implementation could integrate incorrectly with the changed
system, miss files that now also need updating because of the change, or
rely on tradeoffs that no longer hold now that the underlying system is
different - none of which the original plan could have anticipated, and
none of which get caught if the plan is treated as still valid without
re-examination.

The chapter's own guidance is direct: this situation calls for revisiting
the plan - checking whether its approach, file list, and tradeoffs still
hold given the changed system - rather than treating the two-week-old
approval as still fully valid regardless of what's changed since.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER:
It applies the chapter's own "plan is a snapshot, not a permanent
guarantee" principle directly to this scenario, explaining specifically
which parts of the plan's reasoning could now be invalid because of the
unrelated change, and names the correct response (revisiting the plan)
rather than treating the original approval as still automatically valid.