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.
1A prospect asks for a tour. The property's ONE connected leasing agent has a dead calendar token. Today the booking refuses outright and nothing gets booked (Western Slope, tour 0e60b663). Should it fall back to the company leasing@ calendar instead?
In plain terms. If the one leasing agent's calendar is broken, should we book the tour on the company calendar instead of losing it?
The session raising this recommends: Book it on the company calendar, never another agent's Losing the tour is worse than booking it on the reserve, and Fede already called leasing@ the reserve/fallback; the policy this reverses is really about not landing a tour on a DIFFERENT AGENT's calendar, which this option still forbids. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Read the merged code rather than treating it as a bug: the refusal is deliberate, written as board row p4-capability-r2-calendar-selection FAILURE POLICY ('do not interpret failure as absence and silently fall through to a different owner's calendar'), applied on purpose to the person rank and pinned by tour-person-selection-refusal.test.ts. Also confirmed the behaviour already splits on agent count (one agent refuses; two or more walk past a dead one), and that the pinned-tour case was separately fixed in #8973. Reversing a stated, pinned policy is not a fix I can make under the grant.