v1.1 plan: state the ReverseProxy abort behaviour the fix depends on; note the second stop

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/plans/v1.1/01-review-fixes.md

@@ -33,7 +33,14 @@
 2. **`/_crossbar/usage` JSON** encodes an empty result as `[]`: initialise the slice
    (`rows := []store.UsageRow{}` / `make(..., 0)`) before encoding, on every `by` value and with
    or without `since`. The text form prints its header line even with no rows.
-3. Nothing else changes. Existing tests must keep passing; the two new ones must pass.
+3. **Environment fact you need:** when the client disconnects while `httputil.ReverseProxy` is
+   copying the response and the request came through a real `http.Server`, `ServeHTTP` does not
+   return — it panics with `http.ErrAbortHandler`, which the server swallows. Code after
+   `rp.ServeHTTP` never runs on that path. Write the accounting row from a **deferred** function
+   in `forward`: `recover()`, record (status 499 when the recovered value is `http.ErrAbortHandler`
+   or the request context is done), then re-panic with the same value so the server keeps its
+   semantics. Exactly one row per request on every path.
+4. Nothing else changes. Existing tests must keep passing; the two new ones must pass.
 
 ## Steps
 

docs/plans/v1.1/README.md

@@ -32,3 +32,11 @@ Branch `v1.1`. One task, one fresh OpenCode session, one commit.
   the sandbox refused a `/tmp` scratch program (the I9 pattern, third time tonight). The rule
   against ending a turn on a refusal lived only in v1's task 05; it is now in `AGENTS.md`, so every
   task carries it. Resumed from the working tree.
+- 2026-09-25, task 01, second session: two of three tests passing; the mid-stream cancel wrote
+  no row because `httputil.ReverseProxy` does not return when the client disconnects mid-copy on a
+  real server — it panics with `http.ErrAbortHandler`, so code after `rp.ServeHTTP` never runs.
+  Ornith tried to read the Go source tree to find that out; the sandbox refused (outside the
+  repository) and the session ended on the refusal again. Two faults: the task text did not state
+  the environment's behaviour (mine — the customer describes the world the code runs in), and the
+  model ended a turn on a refusal (its, fourth time). Third session given the fact and told to
+  record from a deferred function with `recover()`.