My workflow is something very similar. I'd say one difference now is PRs actually take longer to get merged, but it's mainly because we ignore them and move onto something else while waiting for CI and reviews. It's not uncommon for a team member to have multiple PRs open for completely different features.

Context switching is less painful when you have a plan doc and chat history where you can ask why yesterday afternoon you (the human) decided to do this thing that way. Also for debugging it's very useful to be able to jump back in if any issues come up on QA/prod later. And I've actually had a few shower thoughts like that, which have allowed the implementations of some features to end up being much better than how I first envisioned it.

Odd how you add the time for the requirement analysis but none for the coding.

Then you tell us you leave 83% of the analysis —and the coding— to a code chatbot.

Are you actually more productive or are you going to find out down the line the chatbot missed some requirements and made APIs up to fill up a downstream document and now you better support them by yesterday?

In ye olden days, people doing this would scream at the junior developers. Are you going to scream at your screen?