Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one carries the recommendation of the session that raised it — if you
agree, pick it and press Done. A model's opinion, where there is one, appears on the card
as a receipt line; cards with no receipt were never put to a model. "I'm not sure" is a real answer and becomes work for me.
You don't need to open the session — pressing Done sends your answer back and it picks up.
1Five fair-housing reds happened on real voice calls at Western Slope in the last six days and NOT ONE reached a human — no Slack card, no fix-drive, nothing. Separately, the live pre-send fair-housing hold that catches these BEFORE Clara speaks runs only in the text turn loop; nothing calls it on the voice path, and all five were voice. Do we build the same protection for phone calls now?
In plain terms. Should Clara check for fair-housing problems on phone calls before she speaks? Five warnings fired and nobody saw them.
The session raising this recommends: Yes — catch it on calls before Clara speaks This is bigger than the card question you were asked. Measured read-only against production: 1,147 fair-housing judgements since 2026-08-17, 5 red (0.44%), all five on voice calls at one real non-test property, all five in the last six days, and zero reached any human by any route. On phone calls the after-the-fact judge is the only fair-housing detector that has ever existed — the live check that blanks a bad reply before it ships is wired into the text path only. So on calls we currently notice fair-housing problems afterwards and then drop them. That is legal exposure, not tidiness, and it is the one thing this investigation found that I do not think can wait. What I am NOT claiming: I could not confirm whether those five calls were real prospects or test traffic, and the investigation said so rather than guessing. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Not routed to the ladder. Fable's weekly allowance is exhausted, and the ladder has already shown on this exact subject (receipts f4f297039 then f2c852068) that it will first say only a person may settle a fair-housing notification question and then rule on it anyway on a single rung. This is legal exposure on a customer-facing channel; routing it to a model a third time would launder the same refusal again. Evidence is measured read-only against propflow-prod with positive controls, in scratchpad/lanes/fh-card-evidence/.