How Clara should act inside a customer's AppFolio texting inbox, next to Kat, Jay, shared logins and bulk sends. Real Western Slope threads; the smallest sound start for prospects.
Proposed — pending Fede's review 2026-10-19, updated after Fede and Gera's call that afternoon. Own page because the PMS conversations hub records what was built; this decides how Clara behaves beside staff before any turn-on. No code or settings changed.
On this page
Three numbers, Western Slope, Sep 30 to Oct 19. 27 of 146 people in the inbox copy have both a named staff text and Clara. 6 of the 80 leads Clara worked were restarted cold by staff, asked again what Clara had settled; none answered. Over-eager: 0 of 46 eligible renter texts would have woken Clara under today's rule; left hanging after staff took over: 7 of 146, 1 real.
One firm rule: a named staff text stops Clara on that thread. Built, proven at the Willows. The copy sees texts only, not read state, assignment, typing or calls, so this is the only "staff is handling it" signal there is.
Three decisions (detail in the folds):
1. Stage: modules decide (recommended), leasing on means prospects first and the applicant status ask as a second step; or a hard prospect gate; or no gate.
2. Hand-back: explicit only (recommended), staff reassign or the waiting prospect shows on a list; or timed resume at 24 h; or never.
3. Before any customer: three small pieces, then a shadow week (recommended): stage read at message time, the leasing routine asks, the waiting list; then Clara decides and drafts on every real Western Slope inbound with nothing sent; or the door as built; or wait for Situs data.
| Lead | Clara's own number | AppFolio inbox, staff | Asked twice |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...4860 | Oct 16, 8:09 to 9:16 AM: wants the new pre-leasing duplexes; husband starts a job in November; "we are in Idaho… let me get back to you on timing". Clara: "no rush, a virtual tour could help meanwhile". Renter: "Thank you so much!" | Oct 16, 4:35 PM, Kat: "I saw your inquiry to our new and upcoming Ember community. Feel free to reach out to me here to set up a time to go see one." | When can you come see one, 8 h after the renter said they would get back on timing. |
| ...4236 | Oct 7: call, Clara books a self-guided tour for 5:30 PM, sends the lockbox code. 6:54 PM: "Yes I would like to submit an application." Clara confirms a co-signer and a housemate are fine; Oct 8 she explains every adult applies. | Oct 16, 11:03 AM, Kat: "just reaching out to see if you found a place in Ridgway already or if you had any comments regarding our units…" | Did you find a place, 9 days after he toured and asked to apply. |
Visibility does most of the work: Kat sees Clara's thread before she types. Turn-taking is the smaller half, and Rule 1 already does it.
Of 80 leads, 20 later got a named staff text; 10 knew the history, 6 were cold restarts (8 with two weak cases). Cause: Kat's check-in passes (11 "did you find a place in Ridgway?" texts in 3 hours on Oct 16), run without seeing Clara's thread. 4 of the 6 cards are assigned to Clara. Kat to a resident, Oct 14: "Also ignore Clara".
| Lead | Clara's own number | AppFolio inbox, staff | Asked twice |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...5740 (Spanish) | Oct 13: tour booked for the 14th at 11:30. 7:59 PM: "since we can't meet the requirements, we'll have to cancel". Clara: "Understood, your visit is cancelled, no worries." | Oct 14, 9:26 AM, Kat: "wanted to know if you had found another apartment or had a specific reason". Renter: "I don't meet the requirements." Kat offers a $1,750 one-bed. | Why did you cancel, the morning after he told Clara. Kat's cheaper offer is real value; the re-ask is the waste. |
| ...8013 | Oct 5: email Q&A on a $2,000 unit and parking. Oct 8 and Oct 9: Clara's texts "would you like to set up a time to take a look?" go unanswered. | Oct 13, 11:08 AM, Kat: "were you able to check out the video? … If you would like an application, just let me know." 11:13 AM, renter: "Stop". | Third "want to see it?" in five days, from a second number. The lead opted out. |
| ...4229 | Oct 8, 12:58 PM (email): "available tomorrow evening for a tour?" Clara offers one; texts again Oct 9 and Oct 10; emails Oct 15. | Oct 8, 5:20 PM and Oct 9, 2:23 PM, Jay: "checking in again… someone available to meet you this evening for a showing". | When can you tour: two numbers, four asks in about 26 h, no answer. |
Under one thread (inferred): "did you find a place?" becomes "did the application go through?"; Kat sees two unanswered nudges and holds off, so the lead is not lost to STOP; Jay's first text stops Clara's follow-ups.
What happened after the first staff text that followed Clara (27 people):
| After the first staff text that followed Clara (27 people) | People | Of all 146 |
|---|---|---|
| Staff kept it: every later question answered within 24 h | 7 | 4.8% |
| Left hanging: a later question with no office answer in 24 h | 7 | 4.8% |
| Ended: the renter never wrote again (the 6 restarts live here, all prospects) | 12 | 8.2% |
| Staff wrote only before Clara | 1 | 0.7% |
Three questions on every inbound, in the order Fede set on the Oct 19 call with Gera:
| Question | Answer and what Clara does | Today | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is it for me? | If someone from the office wrote after Clara, it is not. She stays quiet and only records the message in PropFlow (Gera: "this isn't involving me, but let me update our records so we have the conversation later"). | built |
| 2 | Can I actually finish it? | Only a routine ask she can complete from the record. If her best reply would be "let me check with the team", she stays quiet and the thread goes on the waiting list. Gera's bar: help only when about 95% sure nobody touched it and she adds value, "not stepping on toes". | not built; today she may take a thread and defer |
| 3 | Then help. | Reply and finish the ask: tour, availability, price, deposit, later application status. | built |
How to tune it without risk (Fede and Gera, Oct 19): a shadow week. The door runs at Western Slope with sending off; on every real inbound Clara records her decision (quiet, would reply with this text, would defer) and the drafts go to a channel Fede and Gera read. Nothing is approved and nothing is sent; the counts of over-eager, left hanging and "would defer" on real traffic replace the estimates on this page. Fede expects "about a month to get it right"; the shadow week is how the month is measured.
Question 2 is the new rule this page adds: "I'll check with the team" is a third failure side, between over-eager and left hanging. The signals below are what the thread can show for questions 1 and 2.
| What the thread shows | What it means for Clara | Status |
|---|---|---|
| A text from a named staff member after Clara | Stops her on that thread | built, proven at the Willows |
| The shared office login ("Assistant PM") writes | Counts as staff: stops her | built (15 of the 45 silent cases in the replay) |
| A bulk send, a notice, an application-link template | Not "staff is handling it"; does not stop her, does not wake her | built |
| The renter writes and Clara's text is the newest office-side message | Wakes her for a reply | built; 0 wakes on the real copy so far |
| The renter writes first, nobody from the office has spoken | Does not wake her (she is not on the thread) | known gap; 1 case in the copy |
| AppFolio's "assigned to" on the card | Not usable as a signal yet: it is not on the message rows, Western Slope fills it on 66 of 1,113 cards, and 4 of the 6 restarts went to cards assigned to Clara | not a rule |
As built today: no stage check. An applicant's reply wakes Clara like a prospect's; residents are silent only because the copy skips their threads. The stored stage is read once at backfill, so any option needs the stage read at message time.
| What wakes Clara | What she may do | Fits Fede's long-term frame? | What breaks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Hard gate prospects only | Prospect threads only. Applicant and resident replies never wake her. | Everything she does on her own line. | No. The gate has to be removed later, and "prospect" is a status AppFolio flips the moment someone applies. | The person in the crossing examples below applies, texts "what's next?", and gets silence from the same number that answered them an hour ago. |
| b. Modules decide recommended | A reply wakes her when the person's current stage belongs to a module that is on at that customer. Leasing on, maintenance off: a prospect wakes her, a resident's repair text does not. Leasing covers the prospect stage first; the applicant stage joins it only when its one routine ask (below) is built and turned on, as a second step. Gera's maintenance follow-ups (work order created, "how was it, 1 to 5") are the next texts Fede wants through this same door, and a reply to one of them belongs to maintenance, never to leasing. | Within a module, the routine asks only; judgment calls are parked to staff. For leasing that is the top five things prospects ask (next row). | Yes, this is the frame: "Clara helping on all stages depending on which modules are enabled, mostly for the grunt work." | Nothing new: a stage with no module on behaves exactly like option a. "Prospects only" is step one of the leasing module, with the applicant step still off. |
| c. No gate today's build | Any renter reply on a thread where Clara spoke last. | Whatever her prompt decides. | Partly, but the behaviours a stage needs do not exist yet, so she improvises on applicant and resident asks. | Fede's "awakened accidentally" case: an applicant thread drifts into deposits or a cosigner, and Clara answers from a leasing prompt. |
Leasing's routine asks, from Situs's records (334 prospect questions, snapshot): booking a visit 173, availability 59, price 39, deposit and fees 31, where the application stands 30. Clara does the first four today; the fifth is the applicant second step. Approvals, cosigners and negotiations stay with staff.
On the real crossings: 7 people became applicants or tenants while we held their messages, 6 texted again (59 texts), and Clara would have woken on none under any option because staff always wrote after her. The two near-misses:
| Thread | What the person did | a. Hard gate | b. Modules decide | c. Today's build |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ...9443, applied Sep 23 | Oct 3: "I haven't seen the tenant paperwork, could we get that sent over?" The newest office text was Clara's tour reminder from Sep 22. Kat answered 58 minutes later: "I have it built, I just need one of my bosses to check it." | Silent. Right. | Step one (prospects): silent, same as a. Step two (applicant status ask on): a status line from the record ("your lease is being prepared, Kat will send it") and the thread shows Kat the question. The lease terms stay with Kat. | Probably wakes her with a leasing prompt on a lease question (inference: the replay matched office messages by phone; the live rule reads one conversation). Held today only because our copy of the stage is stale. |
| ...7495, applied Oct 2 | Oct 3: "heads up that we filled out the application and [co-applicant]'s lease holder is…". Kat had texted 3 h earlier; she replied to this one 41 h later. | Silent. The person waits the weekend. | Silent because Kat wrote last (Rule 1). Without Kat's text: step one silent; step two a status reply plus "Kat will review it", nothing more. | Silent because Kat wrote last. Without Kat's text: wakes her on an application update meant for Kat. |
Long-term frame, Fede: Clara on every stage as modules turn on, grunt work only, judgment to people (coworker, competitors).
Once Kat has written, the thread is Kat's. Nothing today says when it is Clara's again.
| How Clara comes back | Over-eager risk | Left-hanging risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1. Explicit only recommended to start | She stays off until a person hands the thread back: the staff member reassigns it to Clara in PropFlow, or the staff thread goes quiet AND the prospect writes again, in which case PropFlow shows the thread to staff as "prospect waiting, Clara is off" instead of answering. | None. She never speaks after a person without a person's say-so. | Real, but visible: the unanswered prospect sits on a list staff see, the same way an unanswered Situs lead waits today (median 15.5 h after hours). |
| H2. Timed resume | She comes back after the staff thread has been silent for a set time (say 24 h) and the prospect writes again. | Real: a staff member who is on the phone with the prospect, or waiting on a manager, gets Clara in the middle. | Smaller. |
| H3. Never | Once staff speak, the thread is theirs for good. | None. | Largest: every restart case above would stay with staff even after they move on. |
Why explicit first: nobody we read resumes an AI on a clock; the return is a human action, and "the human went quiet" goes to a human queue. Timed resume is one line on top if the left-hanging count grows.
| Carries over as is | Does not carry over |
|---|---|
| Who the person is: one person record per phone, the same guest card, the same conversation | Who owns the thread: on her line it is always Clara; here it is whoever wrote last, or whoever AppFolio says is assigned |
| What she knows: the property knowledge base, availability, pricing, tours and the booking rules | Handoff and hand-back: on her line staff never type into her thread; here they do, and nothing signals when she may resume |
| What she does after a reply: the follow-up sequence stops when the person answers, the tour confirmations, the application link | Sender identity: the person sees the office's number, not Clara's; a staff member may continue her sentence |
| The teammate-replied hold: the same hold she already applies when a human answers on her own thread | Timing: her line is instant; the inbox copy is read on a schedule (one minute when busy, up to thirty at night), so a reply can wait |
| STOP and START: recorded on the person's number whichever line they text | Visibility of her work to staff: on her line staff see nothing unless they open PropFlow; here every Clara text sits in the inbox they already use |
| The judge and the replay harness: the same checks run on the same conversation records | Bulk sends and notices: they land on the thread from the office side and must not be read as "staff is handling this" |
Help pages read Oct 19, linked on each name; "not documented" means the public pages say nothing. They agree on three things: a human reply, not an assignment, stops the AI; the takeover is explicit and visible; the return is a human action, never a clock.
| Product | What stops the AI | Hand-back | Collision with a human | Unanswered customer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zendesk AI agents | A human takes the ticket over; the AI "stops working on it" and the takeover is logged in the ticket history | not documented | Public replies blocked until the human takes over | Unassigned over 10 min moves to a queue view |
| Intercom Fin | A customer-visible teammate reply, or Fin's own handover. Assigning the conversation to a teammate does not stop Fin | not documented; warns that a broad "any customer message" trigger makes Fin "keep replying indefinitely" | not documented | Inactivity rule passes it to a teammate or closes it |
| Front (shared inbox) | no AI replies documented | — | One assignee per thread; "someone is replying" indicator; one editor per draft with a takeover banner | not documented |
| Sierra, Decagon, Ada | Hand off to a person with a summary when asked or when the case is hard | not documented | not documented | not documented |
| EliseAI, Funnel, Knock, LeaseHawk, Entrata, AppFolio's own AI | not documented (Funnel: operators set "handoff points"; Knock: "transition from AI to a leasing agent") | not documented | not documented | not documented; Knock keeps the transcript on the guest card so staff see it |
| Agent frameworks: LangGraph, Copilot Studio, AutoGen, Lindy | An explicit pause or transfer step with the context attached | An explicit resume action; never a timer | — | — |
The copy holds texts, sender, time and a stale stage. Not who read a thread, who it is assigned to (filled on 66 of 1,113 cards; 4 of the 6 restarts went to cards assigned to Clara), typing, calls, voicemails or notes. A staff member on the phone or drafting a reply is invisible; Rule 1 cannot protect that minute. So Clara answers only where she spoke last, and only the routine asks.
Situs Group: 0 threads in the inbox copy, so every number here is Western Slope's. Situs's own snapshot (390 of 637 leads handled by two or more people) says the question is at least as live there.