The yes-man problem
A normal planning chat tends to follow the founder language instead of testing it. It may restate goals beautifully while skipping the exact point where the product stops making sense.
A planning chat can sound smart while never forcing the decisions that keep a real app coherent.
A normal planning chat tends to follow the founder language instead of testing it. It may restate goals beautifully while skipping the exact point where the product stops making sense.
A serious product recovery process has to push on scope, authority, state ownership, write paths, approval points, and what the first trustworthy version actually includes.
Move from the failure pattern to a real recovery example before opening your own case.
AI-built apps rarely fail because one prompt was bad. They fail because product truth, code truth, and the build workflow split apart.
Read nextGuideMany ?random bugs? are really authority conflicts: the interface, the database, and the AI instructions each believe they own the same decision.
Read nextCase studyDeskSnap already had working functionality, but new features repeatedly interfered with existing systems because the product lacked one governing architecture.
Read nextIf this failure pattern looks familiar, move into the Case Room and bound the app before another coding session drifts it further.
Understand how Driftbreak moves from intake to package without pretending the case is already clear.
Review what the architecture, blueprint, workflow, and coding sessions actually look like.
Start a case once you want the bounded architecture and implementation handoff for your own app.