I'm parked on you

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.

14 questions on this

In plain terms. Should Gera approve the account called Clara Propflow as Situs's robot sign-in, pick a phone for its security codes, and leave our other client's fallback alone? Fede ruled the robot must stop using his personal account, and Situs is the last one doing it. Smith cannot ask a client directly.

1 of 4 answered

1Situs's AppFolio holds two users created for us, 'Clara Propflow' and 'Clara AI'; neither is confirmed active. The ladder picked Clara Propflow and it checks out independently: Western Slope's live robot renders as 'Clara Propflow' in AppFolio's audit log (lib/recordGuestCardCommunication.ts, card 2954), and 'Clara AI' appears nowhere as a seat. The activation request is customer contact changing a third party's production permissions, so Smith will not send it. It must ask for four things together: a password stored the sanctioned way, 2FA pointed at the number from question 2, a role that can text from guest cards, and a role that can be assigned cards. It should also confirm the address is clara+situsgroup@propflowai.co (fixtures pin it; a mismatch seeds the row against the wrong identity) and ask Situs to deactivate the unused Clara user.

In plain terms. Should the robot sign in to Situs as Clara Propflow, and should Eileen be the one Smith asks to switch it on? Situs made two assistant accounts and neither works yet. Clara Propflow is the name the robot already uses elsewhere.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Clara Propflow — Eileen sends the ask
Clara Propflow matches the robot seat name already live at Western Slope and is what our onboarding asks clients to create; Eileen is the named ops contact while Hugo is Situs's president. Wrong-user risk is small and reversible — the other user can be activated and the config row re-seeded.

2The robot's AppFolio 2FA codes are read by polling Twilio, and Situs has no number designated: MFA_PHONE_NUMBER_SITUSGROUP appears nowhere on origin/main and is unset in the environment, while JP&Co and Western Slope each have their own. A specific number must be chosen before the request in question 1 can be sent, because that request names it. Reusing the shared number would route Situs's codes to the inbox belonging to the login this task exists to stop using.

In plain terms. Should Situs get its own new phone for the robot's security codes? It has none, and the request must name one. Our other two clients each have their own; the old shared phone would route Situs's codes to the account this job retires.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: A new number just for Situs
Every other account already has its own MFA number, so a dedicated one is the existing convention rather than a new idea. Sharing the old number would route Situs's codes to the inbox belonging to the login this whole task exists to stop using.

3This bears on whether the task can ever read finished. The criterion says Fede's personal user must not be referenced anywhere in the robot setup, but moving Situs off it does not achieve that literally: JP&Co keeps a deliberate, tested rollback onto Fede's shared login if its own robot login fails (the shared login kind in lib/accountConfigSeed.ts, exposed as jpcoLogin on the seed route and exercised by tests). Smith nearly deleted it as dead code and stopped. If it stays, Smith will read the criterion as scoped to the Situs login path, which is what can be verified mechanically.

In plain terms. Should our other client keep its emergency fallback to Fede's own account if its robot sign-in breaks? It is deliberate and tested but clashes with the same rule. Smith nearly deleted it and stopped.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Out of scope — Situs path only
The rollback is a live safety net for a different account, not leftover dead code, and removing it inside a Situs task would widen the blast radius well past what was asked. Scoping the criterion to the Situs path is the reading I can verify mechanically.

4The cloud reviewer's two Claude account slots are both out of weekly budget (HTTP 429, measured verbatim in the agent-smith review job: 'All 2 Claude account slots are OUT OF BUDGET ... Cure: wait for a weekly budget to roll over, or add a fresh account as CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN_<n>'; slots 3-6 are empty). Three PRs are affected: appfolio-browser-agent #603 and #604 for this task, and agent-smith #1343. Separately, only the 'pull_request' door binds a review verdict to a PR's head and it excludes pushes, so the only way to get a bound verdict after a push is a draft toggle - which re-enters that same capped token selection. Nothing merges on a stale verdict, so this blocks the task's critical path. Add a fresh account slot, or wait for the rollover?

In plain terms. Should Gera add a fresh reviewer account now, or wait for the weekly budget to reset? The robot that reviews our code has run out of its weekly allowance on both its accounts, so three finished changes cannot be checked and merged. Nothing is urgent, because the Situs switch is waiting on the customer anyway. Adding an account means putting a new secret in.

Answered: Wait for the weekly rollover
Settled by events, not by Gera: the budget returned on its own at about 03:40Z. A real 2m21s review ran and bound a verdict to PR #605's head, and a review is now running on #604's exact head. The recommended option is what happened, so asking for a new secret is moot. Resolved by this session so a moot question cannot hold the block's AND-gate shut; the other three questions remain open and are genuinely Gera's.

Why, and what was tried
Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide receipt f2a0e7a93 RESOLVED (exit 0, held under reversal, answered by Fable claude-fable-5): 'Clara Propflow becomes the seat, and a human asks Situs to activate it'. Smith verified its load-bearing citation independently — Western Slope's live robot does render as 'Clara Propflow' in AppFolio's audit log. So the seat choice is settled and is here only for an override. What the ladder cannot do is the blocking part: asking a customer's staff to change their production permissions is irreversible once sent and is customer comms, which this task reserves for a human. Questions 2 and 3 the ladder did not cover.

f88a8e60 is parked on this.

Answered and withdrawn (2)
Pick an option above, then press Done.
PropFlow Docs