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.
1The cost-anomaly Temporal schedule's live run timeout is 600s while the committed script sets 165 min, and re-registering it re-pauses the live $100/day spend monitor. Do we run that rollout, and when?
In plain terms. Should the mini change one setting on the cloud-spending alarm now, or leave it alone? The alarm gets 10 minutes to finish each check, but our own setup notes say it should get 2 hours 45 minutes. Making that change is a manual job that switches the alarm OFF until someone switches it back on, so there would be a few minutes with nothing watching our spending. Leaving it alone is safe either way: the fix being shipped still raises an alert if a check runs out of time, it just cannot quietly retry in that one case. Changing it would let it quietly retry every time instead.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Leave the alarm setting alone for now The fix does not need it. Part 4 carries a remaining_run_budget_s guard so pass 1 pages at once rather than deferring when the remaining run budget cannot pay for the wait plus pass 2 - so at 600s the monitor is never silent, it just pages in the slow tail instead of re-reading. Raising the timeout to 165 min would make that tail vanish entirely, which is a real improvement but a separate, deliberate rollout: register_cost_anomaly_schedule.py:177-179 says _create_or_update sends ScheduleState(paused=True) wholesale, so ANY re-register pauses the live cost-anomaly-daily until --unpause runs, and the script itself calls it 'a deliberate human step' needing a describe() receipt. There is no field-level update path, so a timeout-only change does not avoid the pause. Also the ':00 correlation' in the original report is a tautology - _CRON is '0 */3 * * *' so every run fires at :00 - so there is no measured argument for option 3. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt f5e724d8d — NEEDS HUMAN. Both passes agreed on 'Stop for a human: re-registering re-pauses the live $100/day spend monitor, and CLAUDE.md names cron schedules as infra blast radius', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched '$1'), which is not a model'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.