diff --git a/docs/roadmap/conversation-continuation.md b/docs/roadmap/conversation-continuation.md
index b247f52..607c238 100644
--- a/docs/roadmap/conversation-continuation.md
+++ b/docs/roadmap/conversation-continuation.md
@@ -176,10 +176,11 @@ interpret the purpose of that work.
   can build those workflows from the selected branch-level capabilities.
 
 **Details to settle:** callback cancellation boundaries, exact request/stop and
-outcome types, final-turn delivery at budget exhaustion, and error/report
-semantics belong to Decision 4. Execution association and usage accounting belong
-to Decision 5. The sketches below illustrate the selected responsibility split;
-they do not settle those public contracts.
+outcome types, and error/report semantics belong to Decision 4. That decision
+records the accepted normal delivery of the last permitted response. Execution
+association and usage accounting belong to Decision 5. The sketches below
+illustrate the selected responsibility split; they do not settle the remaining
+public contracts.
 
 #### Illustrative Consumer Sketches
 
@@ -261,18 +262,37 @@ can start separate coordinators from the same initial exchange; accepted sibling
 corrections and other branches remain with Audita.
 
 Both sketches omit application-specific error handling and depict normal turn
-progression. They do not prescribe how callback errors or the final result at
-the budget boundary are delivered; Decision 4 must specify those paths so the
-application can handle completed work without mistaking it for accepted content.
+progression. The final permitted response follows the same callback path as
+earlier responses, as accepted in Decision 4. Callback errors, zero-turn budgets,
+and cancellation around delivery remain open there. Completed work must not be
+mistaken for application acceptance of its content.
 The concrete interface should let both examples use the same coordination
 mechanism without manual message-history assembly or per-turn lifecycle
 bookkeeping. Callback model-call association remains part of Decision 5.
 
 ### 4. How Are Application Next Actions And Execution Outcomes Represented?
 
-**Status: open.** For the coordinator selected in Decision 3, define
-content-neutral next actions and distinguish application-directed completion,
-budget exhaustion, interruption, and operational failure.
+**Status: normal response delivery and exhaustion decision accepted; remaining
+outcome and failure details open.** The coordinator uses content-neutral next
+actions and distinguishes application-directed completion from exhaustion.
+
+**Accepted normal flow:** deliver each completed response once through the
+ordinary application callback, including the last permitted response. If the
+callback returns `Stop`, report application-directed completion. If it requests
+another turn and none remain, report exhaustion without executing that request.
+Using the entire budget does not itself imply exhaustion; exhaustion means the
+application requested additional work that the budget would not permit.
+
+This gives consumers one response-processing path, including any application
+validation, without a separate path for the final response. Internal transport
+retries and structural repairs do not produce additional conversation-response
+callbacks. Cancellation and operational-failure delivery semantics remain open;
+this normal-flow decision does not settle those cases. `Stop` and other API
+spellings remain illustrative until public types are selected.
+
+**Alternative considered, not selected:** stop immediately when the turn budget
+is used and expose the final response only in the report. This avoids another
+callback but requires separate consumer processing of the final response.
 
 **Recommendation:** let the application request another turn or indicate that
 the interaction should stop, separately from reporting an operational error.
@@ -287,17 +307,18 @@ unavailable-assessment outcomes to the selected generic controls.
 Cancellation and operational errors should retain useful Go error identities.
 Applications decide whether a stopped branch affects independent work.
 
-**Alternative:** use callback errors to signal ordinary termination as well as
-operational failure. This can reduce the number of result types, but makes
-normal control flow harder to distinguish from failure. Compare it against a
-small explicit next-action result without introducing domain-specific statuses.
+**Alternative considered, not selected for normal termination:** use callback
+errors to signal ordinary termination as well as operational failure. This can
+reduce the number of result types, but makes normal control flow harder to
+distinguish from failure. The accepted normal flow uses an explicit stop action;
+the operational-error contract remains to be selected.
 
-**Details to settle:** next-action and outcome vocabulary, callback/result types,
-result-plus-error behavior, zero-budget behavior, and what consumes an
-additional-turn budget when preparation or generation fails. Keep such a budget
-distinct from structural repair and transport retry. Specify how an application
-receives the last completed response when no further turns remain, including
-whether and how its callback is invoked at that boundary.
+**Details to settle:** zero-turn budgets; cancellation before callback delivery,
+during callbacks, and before subsequent execution; exact next-action and outcome
+types; result-plus-error behavior; and what consumes an additional-turn budget
+when preparation or generation fails. Keep that budget distinct from structural
+repair and transport retry. Whether a failed execution produces a reusable
+exchange remains a Decision 1 question.
 
 ### 5. How Are Related Executions And Usage Accounted For?