docs(friction): execution-mode menu recurred despite the 06-10 mechanical fix

5th occurrence (06-14): asked the subagent-driven/inline menu at the M1 plan
handoff. The 06-10 ledger claims a Stop hook blocks this; it didn't fire. Flag to
verify the hook is present + its matcher catches the writing-plans menu wording.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/FRICTION.md

@@ -21,6 +21,19 @@ earning its keep.
 
 _(append new raw signals here; the next kaizen review consumes them)_
 
+- `[recurring]` **Execution-mode menu asked AGAIN despite the 2026-06-10 "mechanical
+  fix"** (2026-06-14): at the M1 (`public_dns`) plan handoff I presented the "1.
+  Subagent-Driven / 2. Inline Execution — which approach?" menu and asked the user to
+  pick. The decisions ledger (2026-06-10) records this exact behaviour as CHANGE →
+  mechanical: *"Stop hook in `.claude/settings.json` blocks the turn if the menu appears
+  and tells me to proceed subagent-driven."* It did not fire — either the hook is absent
+  in this clone, its matcher doesn't match the wording the `writing-plans` skill actually
+  produces, or it isn't installed/active. The standing agreement is to **default straight
+  to subagent-driven without asking**. → verify the Stop hook exists and that its pattern
+  matches the real menu text (the skill scripts "Two execution options" / "Which
+  approach?"); if it relies on `.claude/settings.json` hooks that aren't active here,
+  that's the gap. 5th occurrence (06-05/06/09/10/14).
+
 - `[friction]` **ADR-writing policy is unsettled** (2026-05-31): drafting an ADR, I
   invented a Status header ("Proposed") on the fly because there's no documented
   convention for how we write ADRs (status lifecycle, required sections). → TODO 10.2 —