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.
1
In plain terms. I got something wrong and want to correct it before Gera acts on it: Clara CAN text that Pomona Park resident after all - I checked with the wrong tool earlier, and there is no portfolio-wide texting problem. So the question is simply how to reach Larissa K. Jones, who has now been waiting four days: should somebody just ring her, or should Clara also text her today with Gera approving the exact words first? The repair ticket is still cancelled with nobody assigned either way, which is part of what the call is for.
The full question, as raised
CORRECTING MY OWN FALSE PREMISE in b92162301, which told you no Western Slope resident can be texted. That was measured with the wrong instrument and is WRONG. I used claraNumberForProperty, which resolve-outbound-address.ts states in its own header answers a different question - 'the number a PM should DIAL, an explicit map, not an inversion'. The REAL send-path resolver, resolveOutboundAddress({propertyId:'appfolio-392'}), returns +19708220641, source 'attachment', from a live org-level line attachment on Western Slope (slot primary, provider elevenlabs, attached 2026-09-19T20:22:23Z) that the static map knows nothing about. Control in the same run: appfolio-45 resolves +18442853526 via the code map, so the probe discriminates. THREE CONSEQUENCES: (1) Clara CAN text this resident; (2) there is no portfolio-wide texting gap; (3) Fable's 'map a number' remedy is already done, in exactly the shape it prescribed - outbound pinned at the shared 970 line via the attachment mechanism. What IS broken is narrow: scripts/send-clara-sms.ts:135 reads PROPERTY_TO_PHONE_MAP directly and dies at :136, so the manual bug-recovery tool is blind to line attachments while the product path is not. That fix is in-plan and reversible, so I am assigning it myself and NOT asking you about it. Reply routing: inbound is keyed on the resident's own phone (GSI1PK=recipientPhone), so her reply is findable; residual I did not trace is which property the inbound router stamps. So the only thing left for you is the resident herself.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: A person rings her today, and Clara texts her once Gera okays the words This is what the decider ruled twice before my bad measurement muddied it (f9feb6dce, and the advisory on the folded block): the text reaches her today even if the call misses, and only a person can learn why she rang and settle a cancelled ticket that carries no reason. Now that the send path is known to work, the text option is genuinely available rather than theoretical. The wording must make NO follow-up promise - an unbacked promise is banned by promise-backing-policy.ts after the Willows incident, and her escalation has no owner - so the staged draft is an apology plus one question: is rainwater still getting in. Nothing sends until Gera approves those words. Tried first, unsuccessfully: f9feb6dce RESOLVED (ring her back AND text her) and f72810522 ruled the lane blocked - but BOTH were briefed on my wrong 'cannot text' measurement. I am not disputing their reasoning; I am correcting the facts under it, which makes their preferred remedy executable rather than impossible. The one new act this uncovers (the recovery script's stale lookup) I am assigning myself, since it is in-plan and reversible.
d656b282 is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (3)
b91962471 How should Gera tell a Pomona Park resident about a repair text that never reached them? The resident reported a door problem two days ago; Clara wrote them a text saying the work order was created, but a question typed in the Slack thread cancelled it, so they have heard nothing. The earlier version of this question said there was no way to send it now — that was wrong. There is a safe tool that sends it as Clara into the same conversation, shows this session a preview first, and confirms delivery, without touching live records; it only needs Gera to approve the wording. The other choices are someone texting the resident personally, changing the live record so Clara sends it itself, or leaving it alone. — folded into b92161399
b92161399 A resident at Pomona Park has a leaking bedroom door, her repair ticket was cancelled with nobody assigned to it, and we dropped her three times - our bug killed her confirmation text, her phone call hit a closed office, and the alert asking the team to ring her back sat unanswered four days - so how should she be reached now? Gera picks one: a person rings her back, Clara texts her asking whether the leak is still there, both, or re-sending the original repair confirmation, which would now promise her a repair nobody is doing. — folded into b92162301
b92162301 A resident at Pomona Park has been waiting four days after we dropped her three times and somebody needs to ring her today - does Gera also want the fault underneath it opened as its own piece of work? Clara cannot text any Western Slope building at all, so the system keeps drafting texts to those residents that silently fail; fixing it means pointing those buildings' outgoing texts at the 970 line that already works, which needs its own careful review because the wrong shape could break where resident replies land. — folded into b92175411