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.
1propflow-inbound-processor-prod's bench lane (Test Property, appfolio-45) authenticates with a single SSM-provisioned bearer token with no multi-account failover. That token's OAuth session periodically gets revoked (Sentry JAVASCRIPT-NEXTJS-11W, unresolved, high priority, first seen 2026-08-02, 110 occurrences, recurred again today 09:22-09:56 UTC), tripping the circuit breaker and causing the nightly SMS stress test to fail/timeout (7 of the last 8 nightly runs red or cancelled). This is architecturally isolated from prod billing and real tenants by design (the bench client fails closed, never bills the metered key, never serves real properties) — so there is no customer-facing or billing risk today — but it makes the nightly check cry wolf constantly and the underlying Sentry issue has sat unresolved for 8 weeks.
In plain terms. Clara's nightly test-message check keeps failing because the shared test account we use for bench/test traffic loses its login every so often — should someone log that account back in and give it a backup, or leave it as-is?
The session raising this recommends: Re-log-in the account and add a backup It's been silently broken 8 weeks and burns a full nightly CI run every time it fires; a backup is the same pattern already used for every other shared Claude account Tried first, unsuccessfully: Traced the SMS stress timeout through CloudWatch logs to a 401 revoked-token + circuit-breaker sequence, matched it to the existing Sentry issue and to a documented 2026-08-02 incident writeup, and confirmed the 3 other nightly quality-eval misses tonight are unrelated CI-side variance, not this issue — so no code PR, this is a provisioning/ops call