Update NOTES.md to mention the whitespace commit

Author: GHolden660

NOTES.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+Note: `routes/users.js` is included in the committed changes.
+
 - What was in the plan you approved, and did you edit anything before approving?
 
 The plan was to add an `updateUser` helper to `db/store.js` that finds a user by id and returns null if it doesn't exist, then add a `PUT /users/:id` route in `routes/users.js` that validates `name` and `email` are present (400 if not), looks up the user via the store (404 if missing), and otherwise updates and returns it. I didn't need to edit anything — it matched the existing GET/POST patterns closely enough to approve as-is.
@@ -6,7 +8,7 @@ The plan was to add an `updateUser` helper to `db/store.js` that finds a user by
 I chose Sonnet as my model, as we are making changes where there is a clear pattern of code to follow from.
 
 - How did you split your commits, and why that way?
-One commit for the `db/store.js` change (the `updateUser` helper) and a second for the `routes/users.js` route, since they're separate layers of the same feature and each is reviewable on its own. NOTES.md is its own commit.
+One commit for the `db/store.js` change (the `updateUser` helper) and a second for the `routes/users.js` route, since they're separate layers of the same feature and each is reviewable on its own. NOTES.md is its own commit, and a small follow-up commit added intentional whitespace to `routes/users.js`.
 
 - What did your review catch — or confirm was already fine?
 Review confirmed validation runs before the not-found check (matching the existing POST behavior) and that the not-found response returns a clean 404 instead of throwing. No changes were needed.