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. When AppFolio itself links a walk-in guest card to the same renter's application, should we trust that link and save the card's extra phone or email on the renter even if the two names are typed differently?
The full question, as raised
identity_contact_match_refused: for a guest card whose own inquiry is PMS-linked to the Person (card+application on one AppFolio inquiry), should claimSecondaryContactValue skip the name gate (claim non-primary, no alert) or keep refusing but record a person-page review item instead of paging? Contact-only matches keep today's guard either way. Design: PR #21530.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Trust the link, save it AppFolio already tied the card to this renter; six name-comparator patches have not held and each weakens the shared-phone guard Tried first, unsuccessfully: Read the prod rows and sync log for ALR-65a76959: the person was created by the application 6s before its own card was refused. Reviewed all six prior fixes (each widened the name check for one shape). Checked b90219772, which required matching names for a bridge join — this asks whether that condition applies when AppFolio's own link, not a phone match, put the card on the person.