I'm parked on you

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.

1Billing: who is the invoice addressed to, and what does a building with no units cost? (p7-billing-counterparty)

In plain terms. Should PropFlow's invoice always go to the management company (not the building's owner LLC), and should a building with no units be billed nothing?

Company pays; 0 for no unitsthe raiser's pick Company pays; bill 1 unit Owner LLC can be billed I'm not sure — go find out Take it to the engineering bridge

Why, and what was tried

The session raising this recommends: Company pays; 0 for no units
Subscriptions are already one per company in Stripe (#12974), so the company is who we bill today; billing an owner LLC separately would be a new commercial arrangement, and the decision record names Fede and the JP&Co principal on it. Today's code already charges nothing for a building with no units; picking that keeps current behaviour. The test that keeps companies' subscriptions separate is merged (#17964).

Model receipt

FABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt f2f36a7a1 — NEEDS HUMAN.
Both passes agreed on 'Needs a founder: billing is commercial', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'billing'), which is not a model's to settle however confident it sounds.

Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.

The reasoning, which is still worth reading before you decide:
The record already rules on…

45627f97 is parked on this.

2Retire the old Western Slope prototype voice agent (v0-970-onto-shared)

In plain terms. Western Slope's number has run on the shared Clara since September; may Fede delete the old prototype agent so we can remove its leftover code and confirm with one call?

Yes: delete it, clean up, one callthe raiser's pick Clean up code only, keep agent Not now I'm not sure — go find out Take it to the engineering bridge

Why, and what was tried

The session raising this recommends: Yes: delete it, clean up, one call
The 970 number already runs on the shared production agent (since the 9-11 cutover, with real tours booked), and the prototype's redeploy lane was removed on 10-02, so the old agent is a frozen leftover. Fede deletes the agent in ElevenLabs; then one PR removes about 3,300 lines of prototype code, and one call to the line confirms the shared agent answers. Deleting the agent and calling a customer's line are Fede's acts.

Model receipt

FABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt f9bb2c116 — NEEDS HUMAN.
Both passes agreed on 'Yes: founder deletes the agent, then the cleanup PR and a proof call', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'call\nCleanup'), which is not a model's to settle however confident it sounds.

Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.

The reasoning, which is still worth reading before you…

45627f97 is parked on this.

3

In plain terms. Can we buy one extra test phone number that isn't linked to any building, so we can prove on a real test call that the safety fixes work?

The full question, as raised

Buy one Twilio test phone number (~$1-2/month), attach it to the voice agent, and leave it linked to no building or company, so we can prove on a real call that a caller to an unrecognised line hears neutral handling and a gas report still alerts their own building (p6-fail-open #18173, #18183).

Yes, buy one test numberthe raiser's pick No, rely on code tests only I'm not sure — go find out Take it to the engineering bridge

Why, and what was tried

The session raising this recommends: Yes, buy one test number
It costs about a dollar or two a month, can be released any time, and it's the only way to test this path without disturbing the two shared test lines.

Model receipt

FABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fca6f9b17 — NEEDS HUMAN.
Both passes agreed on 'Yes: buy one test number and leave it mapped to no building', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched '$1'), which is not a model's to settle however confident it sounds.

Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.

The reasoning, which is still worth reading before you decide:
run.ts:447-4…

45627f97 is parked on this.

Answered and withdrawn (42)

b90731685 The Atlas side-panel item asked for vendor and 'parties' panels that load on demand. People and company panels are built and tested. Vendors already load with the page, so loading them again on demand would fetch data we already have, and 'parties' does not exist yet (it belongs to the relationships work another driver is building). Should we close this item as done? — withdrawn
b90748719 Should we drop the requirement that strict caller-matching stays an on/off setting? On 2026-09-18 Fede said 'we don't want to do strict resident matching'. An older joint note from 2026-09-07 said 'it should be a setting'. The decider split on which one wins. — withdrawn
b90748919 Can we close the Organization Core map item now? The map is finished, but three things still exist in two versions: who sees which buildings, the settings lookup, and the platform-admin check. Each is already owned by another item. The decider split: one reading says close and hand them off, the other says the final sign-off item relies on this one, so it must stay open until the duplicates are gone. — withdrawn
b90758789 Should the internal 'staff' switch (part 3) ship on its own now, or wait for the change that renames the words people see? Part 3 flips two internal markers from 'operator' to 'staff'; every reader already accepts both, so nothing on screen changes. You ruled 'one clean switch with a short messaging pause'. The decider timed out four times on this one. — withdrawn
b90765539 Do we still need to move every conversation record under its company (the planned re-key, a production data migration), now that the company-wide and per-building conversation lists already work from two new indexes? Cancelling it retires an unused module and one migration. The decider timed out four times on this one. — withdrawn
b90783951 When a calendar login is left over and nothing uses it any more, should PropFlow only show it to the team to clean up, or delete it automatically? Deleting cannot be undone, and the design rule says never clear these out automatically. — answered: I'm not sure ma I'm sure they could just leave it there if it doesn't affect anything.
b90791228 Can you admin-merge the one-line fix that turns the automatic code reviewer back on? It has been off for every new change since 5pm, and the fix cannot get the review it needs because the reviewer itself is what's broken. — withdrawn
b90796758 Is the setting that makes PropFlow refuse unknown buildings (PROPFLOW_ROSTER_GATE) set to 1 in the production Vercel settings? Your September 14 decision said to turn it on and it looks like it was set around September 18, but code can't see Vercel settings, so the board still says it's off. — answered: I'm not sure — go find out
b90797587 Will you send one test text from our tester phone to the test building's line, after checking that building's vendor list has no real vendors on it? That single text finishes the texting item; we have no approved way to send it for you, and a maintenance text there could page whoever is on that vendor list. — answered: I'm not sure — go find out
b90910573 The setting that makes PropFlow refuse buildings outside a company is on for the website but not for the background worker that runs renewals and tours. Turning it on there is one config line, but if the worker's building list is incomplete it could wrongly stop some live renewals or tours. Should we first run a read-only check of which live workflows would stop, then turn it on? — answered: Check first, then turn on
b90911610 May we remove the real repair vendors from the test company's vendor list so we can safely send the one test text? Right now the test building can reach 74 real vendors because their records are shared with a real customer, so a test maintenance text could reach a real repair person. Removing them from the test company only (not from the customer) is a production data change, so we need your OK. — withdrawn
b90911984 Which sentence should staff see on a cancelled tour when we couldn't remove its calendar invite? A: "The calendar invite for {name} on {when} may still be on the calendar. Delete it there." B: "We couldn't remove the calendar invite for {name} on {when}. Please delete it from the calendar." C: "Calendar invite for {name} on {when} is still showing — remove it from the calendar." — answered: B
b90947512 Can we write the two missing phone-number records for Camellia and Yale 25 Station in production? Each record just says which building a number belongs to, and nothing about how texts or calls route changes today. The practice run found no conflicts, and either record can be undone from the map-changes page. This is the step that lets us retire the old hard-coded phone list. Yes or not yet? — answered: Yes, write them
b90969106 Can you settle four small calls on board items the decider couldn't break a tie on? Each one is close-or-keep, with my recommendation marked. — answered: chain-groups: Close it now · old-calendar-read: Remove it with the move · page-order-index: I'm not sure — go find out · rollup-cancel: Keep it canceled
b90969430 May we run three production jobs you own? Restart one paused building's sync, remove the six fake test buildings you already approved, and mark each conversation with its company. Each has a dry run and an undo. — answered: sync-restart: Yes, both, in that order · delete-test-buildings: Yes, run it · conversation-stamp: Yes, after the rehearsal merges
b90969693 Fede: may we switch on the tour double-booking hold at real buildings and reset one building's reminder setting? And is your settings refactor still coming? Each is a yes or no with my recommendation marked. — answered: tour-hold: I would confirm with a the engineering bridge to confirm with trinity · reminder-reset: Yes, reset it · settings-refactor: Hold stands, refactor coming
b90971075 May we take two small cleanup steps: stop the made-up automatic repair approval for buildings that never set a limit, and cancel one old invite nobody used? Each has my recommendation marked. — answered: remove-500-default: can we have it off for now · revoke-stale-invite: Yes, revoke it
b90971451 Should we turn Situs's AppFolio sync back on for all 52 of its buildings? I asked about one building earlier, but the pause only works for the whole company. It's the only way to bring back the tenants the one building lost on 9/29, and the bug that caused that is fixed. — answered: ask in the engineering bridge to trinity
b90972665 URGENT: a sync bug has been copying real Camellia residents into our test company since Oct 1 and is still doing it. May we pause the test company's sync now, merge the fix during the stop, and then clean up the copies? — withdrawn
b91006745 Four quick calls: may we cut the sandbox company's 819 links to real vendors, may Fede then run the vendor tagging step, will you make a test-site admin login for one test, and should outgoing texts follow a moved number? — answered: end-sandbox-vendor-links: Yes, run it · vendor-identity-tagging: I'm not sure — go find out · stage-admin-login: Yes, I'll create it · outbound-from-flipped-number: I'm not sure — go find out
b91074683 Should turnover jobs also stop auto-approving up to $500 on buildings that never set a limit, like you just did for repairs? — answered: Count first, then ask me
b91301782 Can I tag each of our ~21,000 conversations with the company it belongs to? It adds one label per conversation, nothing customers see changes, a test run today found 0 problems, and it can be fully undone. Yes to run it now? — answered: Yes, run it
b91302661 Can you sign our test Outlook mailbox back into the test building's tour calendar (a two-minute sign-in, link inside)? — answered: Yes, I'll sign it in
b91303323 Can you review and approve the admin handoff change (#15710) on GitHub? Every check passes but GitHub needs a person's approval. — answered: Yes, I'll review it
b91340628 Turnover's $500 default has approved nothing in 90 days and today only changes a note on held jobs. Turn it off like repairs? — answered: Yes, turn it off
b91340708 May I link 2 tenant-less leases on the test building to their tenants (a 2-row data fix, test building only)? — answered: Yes, run it once
b91340799 Should we skip the live text test for the repair-crew change, since setting it up would write into JP's real AppFolio account? — withdrawn
b91368487 Will you (or Fede) run a one-time command to label the 10 conversations created last night before the auto-label went live? — answered: Yes, I'll run it
b91389090 Can you run the 2-lease test-building fix yourself? The script only lets a founder run it (command inside). — answered: you run it
b91389115 Fede: can you switch on the new handyman crew lookup for one real company, so the last three spots can move over? — answered: Yes, I'll turn it on
b91389836 Can you (or Fede) run the one-time copy that gives every building its new account-owner field? Commands inside, dry run first. — answered: you run it
b91390791 Can you (or Fede) run one read-only check that confirms the conversation switch is safe? It changes nothing; the command is inside. — answered: you run it
b91431999 One real building still keeps its own calendar connection, the one tours book into. This run copies that single connection up to its company, where the new setup keeps them. Nothing customers see changes, and it can be undone. A check just now showed exactly 1 connection to copy and no problems. Should an agent run it now? — answered: Yes, you run it
b91432096 Can you sign our test mailbox's calendar into the STAGE test building? Four tour fixes are waiting on it. Their tests can't book a tour because the stage test building has no calendar; your sign-in yesterday was on the live site, not stage. It's one sign-in as a stage admin and touches only stage. — answered: bring this up in agent-smith channel and we can do it there.
b91436171 Will you raise the database's limit on indexes from 20 to 25 in the AWS console (Service Quotas → DynamoDB → 'Global secondary indexes per table', us-east-1)? The live database already uses all 20. The planned per-building conversation list needs one more, newest-first. It's free to raise, and creating the index itself will be a separate card with its own command. — answered: I'm not sure — go find out
b91462348 Will a founder run the test-building removal as packeted, including the 1,609 test people rows? — answered: Yes, a founder runs it
b91462489 Who owns retiring the tour hold, attending its merge and running its text test? — answered: Take it to the engineering bridge
b91464977 When we don't know which home a caller lives in, is handing their repair to the team the right answer? — answered: Take it to the engineering bridge
b91487193 Will a founder run the one-time write that records JPCO owns its 2 inbound mail addresses, so no other company can ever claim them? — answered: Can you run it or can you slack me on how to run it?
b91487274 When a resident gives permission to be texted, should that permission cover only their building, or every building the same company manages? — answered: Whole company
b91487292 Should buildings keep today's four types (residential, commercial, single-family, unknown), or switch to the design's longer list of types? — answered: Keep today's four
b91532090 Should three new automatic checks run nightly in their own job (more CI cost), or ride the existing weekly test job plus every merge (no new cost)? — withdrawn

Pick an option above, then press Done.