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. Gera — can I drop one line from this job's definition of done? It says guest cards should pull less history, and two investigations showed that saves nothing at all: every fetch costs AppFolio exactly one request however much history we ask for. The written rules also settle it against changing that date range in either direction, so there is no guest-card work left to do — but while that line stays in, this job can finish every real piece of work and still never be able to mark itself complete. Dropping it leaves the two things that do matter: the refusals stop, and Situs's work orders, balances and occupancy stop being skipped. Should I drop it?
The full question, as raised
Restate this task's acceptance criterion to drop the disproven middle clause. Current: 'situsgroup AppFolio 429s near zero over 24h post-deploy, guest cards pull incrementally, Situs work-order/balance/occupancy pulls no longer skipped - verified from prod'. Proposed: 'situsgroup AppFolio request refusals - ours and the vendor's, counted separately - drop to near zero over 24h post-deploy, and Situs work-order/balance/occupancy pulls stop being skipped - verified from prod'. Three reasons. (1) 'guest cards pull incrementally' is disproven: all 1,423 guest-card fetches in 24h cost requests=1 regardless of span, so narrowing saves zero, and guest cards are 21% of the account's requests while work_order ran MORE often (1,455). (2) The opposite change was raised and withdrawn as settled against by doctrine: isStaleForCreate (STALE_CREATE_WINDOW_DAYS=30, Fede 2026-09-16) discards any card received over 30 days ago from the mint path, so a card the gate would accept is at most 30 days old and today-1y already covers it; ADR-0094 line 29 rules the PMS a lead SOURCE, not a peer CRM. So no guest-card window change will be made in either direction. (3) The first clause measures the smaller half: vendor 429s are ~54/day and falling, while our OWN budget refusing our own callers runs ~215/day and has no counter at all - part 2 of budget-fair-share adds one. MECHANICAL CONSEQUENCE: gate item 2 is run:PropFlow-Technologies/propflowai@fix/situs-guest-card-incremental-window green, that branch will never exist, items latch and DONE is a plain AND, so the task can satisfy every real condition and never close. I may append but never weaken a gate (driver skill: 'never by you weakening it'), so this needs the criterion's owner. NOT asked: the guest-card CADENCE (act_now is rate(1 minute)) - that is Fede's by pms-adapter.ts:2704 and both diagnoses agree it is not the cause.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Drop the guest-card line, keep the rest The line asks for a change that saves nothing and that doctrine forbids making, so no work can ever satisfy it; leaving it in means this task can never mark itself complete however much real work lands. The replacement keeps both clauses that describe real harm and fixes the first one to count the refusals that actually dominate - ours, not the vendor's. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide receipt fb8240c70 RESOLVED (both passes, reversed, high/high) to exactly this action: 'Raise it to the human who owns the criterion and change nothing yourself.' I am EXECUTING that recommendation, not overriding it, so this carries the receipt as free text rather than as NEEDS-HUMAN evidence. Its reasoning: the driver skill settles who may shrink a gate - 'only the human door (drive --replace, then re-baseline) may shrink the gate' and 'the human corrects it later through drive --replace, never by you weakening it' - and a driver authoring its own criterion is the recorded goal-drift failure. It also rejected the append-only alternative: appending a corrected condition is permitted because it makes done harder, but DONE is a plain AND, so the disproven item stays in the gate as a zombie and still wedges it. It advised carrying a drafted replacement so the answer is yes or no, which is what the --rec above is.
7a9e5169 is parked on this.
2
In plain terms. Fede needs to decide whether to rotate the production Temporal API key — it was printed into a session transcript on the mini at about 03:16Z today, when a worker asked AWS for a Lambda's configuration and the query it used included that Lambda's environment variables. The transcript is a file that stays on this machine, and this machine also streams its terminal panes, so the key is best treated as exposed even though nobody else has an account here. Rotating it means replacing it everywhere it is configured; leaving it means accepting that a live key sits in a log on disk. Which does Fede want?
The full question, as raised
A live production TEMPORAL_API_KEY was written into a session transcript on the mini at ~2026-10-23T03:16Z. CAUSE: a lane ran 'aws lambda get-function-configuration' with a --query that included Environment.Variables while establishing which commit the appfolio-sync Lambda carries. The lane reported it unprompted, did not act on it, and the COMMITTED probe reads Description only - so the committed code does not have this defect and there is nothing to fix in the diff. SCOPE, measured without reading any file contents: transcripts persist under ~/.claude/projects (directory mode 755); this box has exactly one human account (miniclaw), so there is no second local user; the box does stream terminal panes, and ~/.claude is subject to whatever backup or sync touches the home directory. I have NOT read, grepped or echoed the value, and I am not naming the file here for the same reason. WHY THIS IS NOT MINE: rotating a third-party production credential is a write to third-party production config, which the hard floor reserves to Fede every time under its own rules, and no merge grant reaches the act. I also deliberately did NOT route this through the decision ladder - see the Fable field. WHAT I WOULD LIKE ALONGSIDE THE DECISION: if the answer is rotate, I do not need to be the one to do it and will record it as executed on the founder's confirmation; if the answer is leave it, that is a stated risk acceptance and I will record it as such rather than as an open item.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Rotate the key now A credential that has been written to disk in plaintext should be treated as compromised regardless of how narrow the exposure looks, because the cost of rotating is minutes and the cost of being wrong is unbounded. The mitigating facts are real - one account on the box, no evidence of access - but they are all about likelihood rather than about the key still being valid, and the key is still valid. Tried first, unsuccessfully: I deliberately did not run fable-decide on this one, and I am naming that choice rather than hiding it. The hard floor states that writes to third-party production config are Fede's call every time under their own separate rules, so no model ruling could authorise or refuse the rotation - the ladder could only tell me to raise it, which is what I am doing. A credential exposure is also time-sensitive, and spending a two-pass model round to be told what the written rule already says would delay it for nothing. If the standing expectation is that even this class goes through the ladder first, tell me and I will route the next one that way.
7a9e5169 is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (3)
b92720620 Fede — last week you changed the Situs rental-application pull to fetch every application however old, because 21 of their still-pending applications from 2018 to 2024 had never reached us. The lead-card pull was left on the old one-year setting, so the same kind of old Situs leads may still be invisible to Clara, and widening it costs AppFolio nothing extra. Should we widen the lead-card pull to the whole history too? — withdrawn
b92727123 Fede — should Situs's building-level repair jobs show up in PropFlow at all? Right now any AppFolio work order filed against a whole building rather than a specific apartment is thrown away the moment we fetch it, which is 29.5% of their repair jobs, so a Situs manager opening PropFlow sees about two thirds of their open work. The code says in writing that whether to keep these was a separate decision, and nobody ever made it. My suggestion is to keep them but show them to office staff only, so Clara neither contacts anyone nor acts on a job that has no resident attached. Which way do you want it? — withdrawn
b92745682 Session 7a9e5169 is frozen on a prompt in its terminal (tmux pane %88) that Smith will not answer. Deciding here records your choice on the block; the keystroke itself still has to happen at the pane — nothing will type into a live menu on your behalf. — withdrawn