THOUGHTS — Clarifications and options before PLAN v2

Questions to resolve

Where exactly is stream mode wired: CLI flag handling and runtime routing? Need precise entry points to inspect.
How is read-only enforcement implemented in stream mode? Does code raise on assignments when streaming?
What helpers exist: tostream, fromstream, state_chunks, inputs/slurp or prefixed equivalents? What are their semantics in code/tests?
Event ordering: does implementation guarantee jq depth-first [path, leaf]/[path] ordering (arrays index order, objects read order)?
Mutation semantics: if stream mode allows opt-in writes, how does commit policy enforce single-output and atomic writes?
Doc accuracy: which doc statements might be stale relative to code/tests?

Targeted inspection first: read python/chatter/state.py streaming functions and CLI handling to answer wiring/enforcement questions before running tests.
Test-first: run stream suite to quickly see pass/fail status, then inspect code for coverage gaps.
Doc-first: reconcile docs to set expected behavior, then verify code/tests; risk: stale docs bias expectations.

Start with code/CLI inspection to ground expectations, then tests to corroborate; avoids doc bias and clarifies enforcement logic.
Run stream suite first; full suite if time permits and stream suite passes.
Maintain logs: DECISION LOG for major choices (plan order, interpretations), ASSUMPTION LOG for inferred semantics, RISK REGISTER for gaps.
Use VALIDATION LOG for each test command with timestamp/result.

Incorporate inspection targets (state stream eval, CLI flags, helpers).
Prioritize mutation gating and event ordering validation.
Add contingency for test failures (triage/report vs fix if minor? but goal is assessment).
Explicitly list docs to reconcile.

Current stance favors code-first, tests next, docs reconciliation after evidence. Will confirm in PLAN v2 and capture decisions in logs.