I'm parked on you

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.

1

In plain terms. Should I turn on the batching switch for Situs Group's new AppFolio connection so their onboarding stops getting rate-limited? A new customer (about 52 properties) is onboarding right now and AppFolio is throttling their sync hard because the switch we built for this isn't on yet.
The full question, as raised

situsgroup (org_a3376147-bb8e-4ee7-b8e2-8b3e9af36591, appfolio#situsgroup#86fe) is mid live-onboarding (connect-pms/sync completed 15:56-16:01 UTC today) and is now throwing sustained AppFolio 429s (throttleCount 281 in ~15min, still climbing) because it has ZERO per-account portfolio-wide-fetch arms and no budget-enforce row — every classed job (balances, guest_cards, lease_states, lease_states_history, occupancies, payments, rental_applications, unit_vacancy) is fanning out 1 AppFolio request PER PROPERTY (52 properties) per tick instead of 1 per account. check-portfolio-arm-coverage.ts confirms 8 live unarmed pairs. This is the exact same disease jpco had on 2026-09-12 before Fede armed 9 config rows to fix it. Arming a real customer's AppFolio account is explicitly a human-only action per docs/integrations/appfolio.md and the coverage script's own header — I should not self-arm it.

The session raising this recommends: Arm it now
Same known-good fix already proven twice (jpco 2026-09-12, westernslopepm 2026-09-13); this is a real 52-property customer actively onboarding, and every tick it stays unarmed keeps hammering AppFolio and delaying their first sync
Tried first, unsuccessfully: Read the ERROR log lines + a full invocation trace, found the account key (situsgroup, not jpco as the alarm's own proxy note assumed), pulled the DDB CONFIG rows to confirm situsgroup has none of the 9 arm rows jpco/westernslopepm both carry, and ran check-portfolio-arm-coverage.ts (read-only by construction, refuses to write arms itself) which independently confirmed 8 live unarmed pairs for this exact account

aa0b2b9a is parked on this.

Pick an option above, then press Done.
PropFlow Docs