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" is a real answer.
1
In plain terms. A tenant-matching rule you set is being loosened — want to keep it that way? On Oct 2 you said a caller and an email with the same name should NOT be assumed to be the same person. A new change says: if the full name AND the home address both match, now count them as one person. Different homes still stay separate. Fede already signed off. Keep the looser rule, or go back to the stricter one you set?
The full question, as raised
PR #17394 reverses part of Gera's 2026-10-02 identity-matching design note ("we won't know the email is the same person as the caller, even if the name's the same"). New rule: same full name + same home now merges into one person; different homes still stay separate. Fede approved the reversal 2026-10-06 in PR #17314. The bot reviewer flagged the contradiction against the pinned test case's header comment; this PR updates that pinned case to match the new rule. PR is merging now under the standing grant (Fede's approval) — this raise is a heads-up / ability to object, not a merge gate.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Keep it — same name + same home merges as one person It only widens the match when the home also matches, not on name alone, and Fede already approved it Tried first, unsuccessfully: Trinity relayed the bot's contradiction catch and Fede's 2026-10-06 approval; confirmed this narrows to same-name+same-home only (different homes stay separate) before raising rather than just forwarding the Slack ping