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.
1A renter has waited about 6 hours for the application to her second home. AppFolio refuses it because that home is not on its vacancies list. Which fix do we take?
In plain terms. Do you want the home listed in AppFolio tonight so her application goes out, and should we also teach the robot to send without a listed unit?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Both: list now, build the fallback Listing the home and re-firing the parked request is the only thing that reaches this renter tonight. The robot fallback is a code change that takes a review cycle. Every coming-soon home hits the same wall, so it is still worth building. It changes the opposite direction from #15834, which treats the refusal as permanent, so it needs your call. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Smith checked: Gera's open #15834 already parks this refusal on the first try with 'list it in AppFolio, then redrive'. Listing the home is a write to AppFolio's live setup, and re-firing sends to a real renter, so neither is Smith's to do unattended. Trinity/003 will not queue a second request because it would not dedupe.
7e600df3 is parked on this.
2A renter has waited 6+ hours for her second-home application. AppFolio refuses it because the home is not on its vacancies list. Which fix do we take?
In plain terms. Will you list the home in AppFolio tonight so her application goes out, and should we also let the robot send without a listed unit?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Both: list now, build fallback Listing the home and re-firing the parked request is the only path that reaches her tonight. The no-unit fallback takes a review cycle, but every coming-soon home hits the same wall. The robot's send route already treats the unit as optional. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Smith checked: open #15834 and appfolio-browser-agent #455 park this refusal on the first try with 'list it in AppFolio, then redrive'. Listing the home changes AppFolio's live setup, and re-firing sends to a real renter, so neither is Smith's to do unattended. 003 will not queue a second request because it would not dedupe.
7e600df3 is parked on this.
3
In plain terms. When the automatic application send fails, should a person on the property team still be asked to send it by hand, or should only engineering be told?
The full question, as raised
When Clara cannot send a rental application (AppFolio refuses, no contact, send fails), who gets told? Gera's ruling 7 (10-02, shipped in #15855) pages the property team AND tells the renter. Fede's words in #15845 ('when we can't send it, that's an engineering problem, not for the staff') are being read as: drop the team page, engineering alert only.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Keep both: team page + engineering alert Today the team page is the only thing that actually gets the renter her application; an engineering alert sends nothing. Fede's recorded words were about a no-contact park paging engineering, not about removing the team page. Dropping the page on that reading leaves a renter waiting on an engineer. Both already fire today on main; nothing needs to change unless Fede wants the page gone. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Smith checked origin/main: #15855 (Gera, merged 04:48Z) adds the team page + renter line in application-send-failed-notice.ts; #15845 (Fede, merged 05:35Z) pages engineering via Sentry at the same park point in guest-card-outbox-drain.ts:3455-3497. Fede's quote exists only as a code comment in #15845 scoped to the no-contact park; no Slack or GitHub comment carries it. Trinity/003 proposes a PR dropping the team page and will build it in 2h without an answer; Smith is holding that because it reverses a founder ruling on an extrapolated reading.