Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" and "Take it to the engineering bridge" are real answers.
1
In plain terms. At Western Slope, a new rental application's phone number was attached to an existing renter's record even though the identity check said they are two different people. Should we move that application and phone onto its own record?
The full question, as raised
pers_e62e7e06-f8f4-4654-8658-abce12578516 (org_c42d9150, appfolio-163): rental application 951 was refused by both the email rung (21:16:06.423Z) and the known-row rung (21:16:06.676Z, contact-conflict), yet claims pms_external_id appfolio:rentalApp:951 (claim_8218714c, 21:16:06.744Z) and a new phone (claim_0e8b27a3, 21:16:06.918Z) were written onto that Person (prospect-spine-stamp mintedPerson=false phone=created). Move those claims to a fresh Person for application 951, via harness-prod-write after the name/source precondition check, or leave until the ladder fix (design doc items 5-7) ships?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Move it to its own record Same shape the decider ruled on for Situs (b93420890): a blend is self-reinforcing, and texts to the applicant's phone would land on the wrong renter. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Read prod sync log request dc1e6f10 and the Person's 17 rows in propflow-prod; confirmed both rungs refused and the stamp wrote anyway. Started driver op-identity-refusal-ladder to build the ladder fix; it parked before dispatch (no board row).