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.
1Under Supervised, should the reviewer email that asks staff to approve a held message be held first (A), or sent directly and gated by mode like today (B)?
In plain terms. When a message is held for approval, the email that tells the customer's staff to approve it is currently sent straight away under Supervised. Option A holds that email too, so PropFlow approves it first and then staff approve the message (two approvals). Option B keeps it sent straight away, as a locked path that only runs when the building is Supervised or Live. Either way Preview and Off send no reviewer email.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: B: send it directly under Supervised and Live (one approval, today's behaviour) The email is how the approval is asked for; holding it silences the queue it announces. ADR-0141 s4 says the reviewer email is never itself held, and PR 23805 kept that after the 10-30 mode rulings. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide receipt fc0d9714c: RESOLVED to B by Fable, but Gera's 2026-10-30 'Supervised holds every message' wording may cover this email, so it is his call. Code: src/lib/domain/escalation/held-reviewer-email.ts:135 (reviewerNoticeMayGo, PR 23805).
a9ce7d1a is parked on this.
2Should Clara's sends go through one decide(module, building) function, migrated in staged steps (A), instead of a new gatekeeper module (B) or more patches (C)?
In plain terms. Should every Clara send go through one decision function, migrated in staged steps (recommended), rather than a new gatekeeper module replacing everything in one change, or continuing to patch sites? Option A: one function that every sender and every hold consults, the old readers moved onto it, then the 'none' escape hatch closed. Option B: a new module that replaces all senders at once. Option C: more patches. The design page is linked in the decision. Fede has handed this to Gera's lane.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: A: one decision function, callers migrated in staged steps (recommended) capabilitiesFor at module-mode.ts:210 is already the one rule; B adds a second decider, which ADR-0144 s6.4 forbids; the staged split is what s6.5 allows; four sweeps in four weeks show C does not remove the bypass. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Fable settled it (receipt fa5aa613b, RESOLVED to A, not NEEDS HUMAN). Raising anyway because Fede handed the choke-point to Gera's lane as a design direction, and the dependencies D1 and D2 are Fede's. Design page: https://docs.propflowai.co/a/clara-choke-point-design.html