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" is a real answer.
1
In plain terms. After a company goes live, if its email inbox gets disconnected by Microsoft, should someone on the customer's own team be able to reconnect that same inbox themselves? Today we are making it so our own staff can reconnect it for them. Letting the customer do it is faster but means any teammate can re-link the company inbox after launch (only the same inbox, never a different one).
The full question, as raised
PR #15392 (roles part 4a, inbox connect) after reviewer 🔴 at connect/route.ts:116: post-go-live, a revoked Microsoft grant (row error/failedAt) could not be reconnected by anyone. Driver is shipping option (b): restore main's path where a system admin impersonating the customer re-consents (matches decider f55abdf94 'system admins only after go-live'). Open question: ALSO allow any workspace member to re-consent the SAME mailbox after go-live (option a), refusing a different mailbox? Decider fe28f3a0c split a vs b on option order only, both high confidence.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: No, only our staff reconnect after launch Matches your launch rule for AppFolio and building on/off; nothing new is granted. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide fe28f3a0c: the two passes disagreed on option order only (a high, b high). Driver shipped the shared floor (b) and asks only whether to add (a).
d2b30ebd is parked on this.
2
In plain terms. Should everyone on a customer's team be able to see the Billing page and manage the plan, or only the company admin? Today the page is shown only to admins, but behind the scenes any teammate can already start a payment or open the billing portal. We should make the two agree.
The full question, as raised
Roles cleanup (middleware/nav slice): OrganizationSettings.tsx:350 and the shell Billing page are company-admin only; the billing APIs (Stripe checkout, portal, invoices) already accept any workspace member via the company-settings door. fable-decide f6366fd20: both passes chose opening the page to any team member, auto-escalated because it touches money. Gera ruling (a) 2026-10-01: customer job titles grant nothing.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Open Billing to the whole team Matches your no job-title privileges rule; the decider agreed both ways. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt f6366fd20 — NEEDS HUMAN. Both passes agreed on 'Open the Billing page to any team member', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'Billing'), 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.
The reasoning, which is still worth reading before you decide: The page gate is `canManag…
d2b30ebd is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (11)
b90184718 Can I post this reply to Fede in his Slack thread about one person, one conversation? Fede asked who owns fixing it and when. Draft (posted by the Agent Smith bot, not as you): 'Gera's lane owns this. One person will get one conversation per company; the home becomes a label on the thread instead of starting a second one. It ships switched off, and gets turned on for Western Slope first once it is proven on a test company. Progress is on the one-person-one-conversation tracker. No stopgap is needed on the other lane.' No date is promised. — answered: Post it as written
b90185789 Can Fede approve one company-wide on/off switch for 'one person, one conversation', as a written exception to the one-switch-per-building rule? The rule says a customer-facing feature gets one switch per building. This feature is about one person across many homes at one company, so a per-building switch either misreports what is on or needs a second switch behind the first. The switch stays off, shows on the company settings page, and only Fede turns it on, one company at a time. — answered: Yes, one company-wide switch
b90188076 Can we add a new lookup index to the live conversations database and fill it in, so each home's page can show a person's one shared thread? It is additive: the table stays online, nothing existing changes, each pointer is small (ids only), and it can be removed completely. Nothing reads it until the one-person-one-thread switch is on for a company, and that switch is still off everywhere. — answered: Yes, add and fill the index
b90368329 Should we bring back the ~15 calls that weren't saved this morning? Doing it the normal way could send those callers a follow-up text hours late. — answered: Replay them, but send no texts
b90368486 Should every company get one conversation per renter now, like Western Slope? Anyone already split in two would be merged into one. — answered: Turn it on for everyone now
b90533331 For the building two companies share, someone needs to log in as the second company once and check it sees that building (and none of the owner company other buildings). Agents cannot log in as a customer, so a person has to look, or we accept the automated tests as proof. — answered: Accept a stage copy plus the automated tests as proof
b90665509 When Clara calls a vendor but cannot look up which company they know us as, what should she say? After the vendor switchover, the backup name on file may be what a different customer calls that company, so Clara could say the wrong name on the call. Nothing is wrong today; this only matters once the switchover happens. Until you pick, she keeps using the backup name and we get an alert. — answered: Call without saying a company name
b90670540 Does the nightly past-due reminder scan count as properly authorized when our system hands it one company at a time? We just changed the scan so it only reads one company's buildings per pass instead of everyone's. The open question is whether the system choosing which companies to scan is enough, or whether each company must also have its own collections setting switched on. — answered: Also require the company's collections switch
b90780380 Seven decisions about who can lock company pet charges and whether to build two owner and handover links: can you pick an answer for each so these two items can close? — answered: Who may lock or unlock a company-wide p…: No locks for now: anyone can set it (Gera in chat 2026-10-0… · When a building's pet charges are fille…: No locks: remove the lock logic if easy, otherwise leave it… · During onboarding, a customer's reviewe…: No locks: nothing blocks anything; leave deep infrastructur… · On a building's pricing and policy page…: Remove it: roles carry no privilege for now; only PropFlow … · When our rules say a role change must n…: Moot: no locks for now · A customer can report on behalf of owne…: Park until a customer needs it · When a building moves from one manageme…: Park until the first real handover
b90781494 Should the Conversations list show which of our phone numbers or email lines a person contacted, with a filter for it? Gera asked for this column on Sept 24 as part of the one-conversation-per-person work. The same day Fede removed it, saying he never asked for it. Nobody has settled it since. The information is still recorded behind the scenes, so either answer is quick. Gera and Fede, please agree on one. — answered: Bring it back as a FILTER only (no column), shown only when the company has more than one line; also show the called line in the conversation's details panel
b90867792 Can we merge four Western Slope people's split conversations back together in production? They each got two or three threads before the fix went live. Each person is merged one at a time with a tested undo, and the first is merged, undone, and merged again to prove the undo. — answered: Yes, merge all four