1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md
index bf347c8..1f5a45d 100644
--- a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ taking that too literally.
 | 173 | The composer is a plain-text editor, not WYSIWYG | v2 | L | open, 2026-08-27, **asked for by the user** while hand-testing 171. This is a GUI mail client and should edit rich text the way one does: the forwarded original, and the user's own formatting, visible and editable in place. Supersedes the preview 171 shipped as a middle ground, and **subsumes item 133** (markdown syntax highlighting), which is the same want answered cheaply. See the entry: the draft format and the markdown-as-source-of-truth model both change |
 | 176 | Undoing a thread-scoped action applies its inverse to messages it never changed | defect | S | **done 2026-08-28**, unreleased, on `thread-row-identity`. `NotmuchWorker::applyTags()` reads each message's tags before writing and reports only the ids whose tags actually MOVED; a `TagCommand` base carries that effective set for both `ThreadTagCommand` and `MessageTagCommand`, which had the same defect on a multi-row selection. `tagsApplied` does NOT fire on an empty effective list, since an empty change would push an undo entry whose inverse adds a tag no message ever carried, the same bug one step later. `sendThreadTagChange` gained `onlyMessageIds` so it keeps its thread-scoped REPAINT while restricting the WRITE: the card that changed on screen and the messages that changed on disk are different sets on purpose. **The spec's own plan said item 177 would make a thread undo honest and shrink this to the multi-row case; that was wrong and is corrected in the spec**, an undo inverts an EFFECT, not a scope |
 | 177 | A thread row means both a message and a conversation, and neither consistently | design | L | **done 2026-08-28**, unreleased, on `thread-row-identity`, eleven commits. Spec: `specs/2026-08-28-thread-row-identity-design.md`. `ThreadListModel::isConversationRow()` is the single predicate and `scopeForSelection()` the single resolver, replacing the `scopeFor()`/`messageScopeFor()` pair that made the CALLER choose. A summary with `totalCount == 1` is unchanged. **Reverses items 108, 110 and 111**, and the user confirmed they are happy to lose the two-tier chips; the `*_thread` submenu and its five action names are deleted with an `### Upgrading` note. Item 112's hiding rule is reversed too: with the absolute entries gone, hiding the toggle on a mixed selection leaves no way to act, so it is a catch-all and the write direction moves with the label. Membership is the union, with two user decisions kept (never evict the current row; an asked-for write evicts at once, an automatic one defers) and one documented lag (a long thread's summary is not updated by a message write, so reading its last unread message waits for the next query). Dashboard from a `ThreadDigest` read by its own worker walk. Two traps found while building: a `QStackedWidget` takes the LARGEST minimum width of its pages and the hidden dashboard was raising the pane's minimum to 395px over MainWindow's 300px floor, caught by an existing resize test; and the pane now holds two `TagStrip`s, so both are named |
-| 178 | Delete and Restore judge a conversation on one message | defect | XS | open, 2026-08-28, split out of item 168 by item 177 and flagged in that spec's "Open, deliberately". `MainWindow::everySelectedRowIsInATrashFolder()` reads `ThreadSummary::firstMessagePath` for any row that is not a message row, which was correct while a thread row MEANT that message and is not correct now that it means the conversation. A conversation is in the trash when ALL of its messages are, so a partly-trashed thread currently answers on whichever message the query returned first: Delete can be hidden on a conversation that still has mail outside the trash, and Restore offered on one that mostly does not. Not data-affecting, both actions are no-ops in the wrong direction, but it is an inconsistency the row-kind rule was supposed to remove. Needs the summary to carry the answer, or the paths of every message, which the digest walk already reads |
+| 178 | Delete and Restore judge a conversation on one message | defect | XS | **done 2026-08-29**, unreleased, on `thread-row-identity`. `ThreadDigest` carries every message's path, collected by the walk it already makes, so the predicate tests the whole conversation. Known for the SINGLE selected conversation row the digest was requested for; any other selection falls back to the summary's one path, which is the pre-177 answer, deliberately left no worse rather than given a second differently-wrong rule. Section in the closed file |
 | 174 | An external `notmuch new` reaches the index without the pending count noticing | defect | S | open, 2026-08-28, from the notes. Item 54 cleared the count for a sync run by `mailsync.sh`, which is what `SyncMonitor` watches; a bare `notmuch new` (a hand run, or a cron entry that is not the script) takes notmuch's own write lock and touches `/tmp/mbsync.lock` not at all, so nothing observes it. The user's framing is the approach: we own `mailsync.sh` and the whole process |
 | 175 | The send countdown says Undo, and cannot be skipped | presentation | XS | open, 2026-08-28, from the notes. Two changes in one control: the button reads Abort, and a second button sends immediately rather than waiting the countdown out |
 | 179 | Undo is one level deep in practice, and there is no Redo | workflow | ? | open, 2026-08-29, from the notes. The `QUndoStack` is real and multi-level; what is missing is a `redo` action (absent from `knownActions()`, never called) and an answer to the stack being CLEARED on every new query (`mainwindow.cpp:3458`), which is what makes a deep stack behave like a shallow one. The clear has a correct reason and cannot simply be removed. Redo re-applies a write to real mail, so item 176's rule binds it too |