Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one has a recommendation from Fable — if you agree, pick it and
press Done. "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.
1Victoria's notice can't fire the firm NTV path: she's month-to-month, so there is no lease end date, and the email signal has no field for the Sept 30 she actually stated. Where should the move-out date come from?
In plain terms. A resident at Camellia emailed us a proper 30-day notice to vacate on Aug 31, saying she'd be out Sept 30. Nothing happened — we didn't close out her renewal, didn't start the turnover, didn't draft the move-out in AppFolio, and the email never even showed up on her page. Two separate things stopped it. The first we can just fix. The second needs you: she's month-to-month, so there is no lease end date on file, and that date is the one the system uses to decide when she's actually leaving. The Sept 30 she wrote is sitting in the text of her email, but we don't read it into a field today. So: do we start reading the date out of what the resident wrote, do we leave notices like hers for a person to handle, or do we guess 30 days? Guessing is the one I'd rule out — a wrong move-out date doesn't just look wrong, it makes us file a SECOND move-out in AppFolio later when the real date turns up. My recommendation is to fix the first problem now and, when there's no date on file, flag it for a property manager instead of guessing — then teach the system to read the date properly as a follow-up, once we've tested it.
Fable recommends: D — fix the eligibility gate; fire the firm path only when a real move-out date exists, otherwise keep it soft AND escalate to a PM so a person sees the notice and supplies the date It fixes the silent drop AND puts a human on the notice, without a machine inventing a move-out date. B is out: an invented date is half the dedup key against the AppFolio portal path, so it would quietly produce a SECOND move-out draft when the real one arrives. C leaves Victoria's notice doing nothing. A is the only real source of her Sept 30 and is worth doing, but it hangs autonomous move-out on a newly model-extracted date, so it wants its own evals first — recommend D now, A as a follow-up. Fable was asked, and escalated. Receipt fcb0d0052 — NEEDS HUMAN. Both passes agreed on 'D: fix the eligibility gate, fire the firm seam only when a real date exists, otherwise land soft plus an explicit PM escalation', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'renewal'), which is not Fable's to settle however confident it sounds.
Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.
Fab… Tried first, unsuccessfully: fcb0d0052 — both passes independently chose D and it was escalated anyway because the question touches a commitment to a resident. Fable's reasoning: B violates the no-fabricated-values rule and poisons the (tenantId+moveOutDate) dedup; C alerts nobody; A is defensible but anchors the highest-bar autonomous move-out category on a new model-extracted value whose failure mode is a silently-poisoned dedup key.