Paula Delgado (unit 607, studio, lease ends Aug 31 — 28 days out) got the standard renewal outreach on 7/10: 12-month at $1,150/mo (her current rent). After two nudges and a no-answer call, she replied by email on 8/3 — addressed "Hi Erika" — counter-offering $1,000, citing the rate on our own website for comparable studios.
Clara engaged autonomously: refused to negotiate (correct), fired renewal_escalate in the
same turn as the promise (correct, saga now carries the counter-offer), quoted only accurate numbers
(verified). But the engagement itself, the escalation's destination, and — most importantly — the offer's
price were all wrong in ways worth separate decisions.
awaiting_countersign wait is reachable from a bare LLM-extracted "I'll renew" statement
(no signature), and this exact saga is the cited incident in the ADR-0122 D2 fix — the code's
evidence-gate comment names "2026-07-31, Paula Delgado / saga_fba0927a" as the case where "one workflow
line became a PM email asserting a signature that never existed." The honest
commitment_stated phase name and the signature-evidence gate shipped after her workflow
entered the phase, so her pre-patch history keeps the misleading label. Net state: she stated renew
intent on 7/31 (day after the ad-price drop), then countered at $1,000 on 8/3. No signed
document exists; the live question is purely the offer price. Reminder ladder: still
correctly terminal (the 7/31 intent suffices), so no further nudges will fire at her.
PRICE_CHANGE
record, source appfolio, direction "drop"). Her offer — prepared 7/10, before the drop — still asks
$1,150. We are asking a sitting resident to renew at a 15% premium over what we currently
advertise her own unit type for. Nothing in the system invalidates a live
OFFER_PREPARED saga when a price drop lands, and the escalation email told the PM to
"review the website" without mentioning our PMS recorded the drop four days ago.
The classifier said don't reply: verdict lease_document → extract_operational
(extract facts only). The active-thread invariant (locked ruling, shipped 8/2 after the
Jace dropped-email incident) overrode it: Paula has an open conversation at the property with activity
inside 30 days (her own renewal outreach, 15 days prior), so the non-reply verdict became advisory and
the agent loop engaged. Same override fired on another sender 12 seconds earlier — systemic, not a
one-off.
The invariant worked exactly as ruled. The scope question it raises: it was designed around prospect threads and quick in-thread replies, but a stale outbound renewal campaign also counts as an "active thread" — so Clara now autonomously handles live rent negotiations addressed to a named human, replying in front of Erika from the property's own mailbox with no greeting, no name, no AI disclosure.
Redundant by construction. renewal_escalate emails
Property.propertyEmail — for Camellia that is camelliaapts@jp-co.com,
the same mailbox the conversation already lives in. The handler was written for the
voice lane (tool label: "Renewal Escalate (voice signal)"), where a PM email is the only way to reach a
human; on the email lane the PM is already the audience. One tenant email → three artifacts in one
inbox: her message, Clara's reply, and an escalation email describing both.
Bonus defect: the escalation email then looped back through our own inbound webhook
and burned a full AI classification (2.8s + tokens) before being skipped — the renewal escalation
template lacks the loopback-detector markers the PM-forward template has
(detect-own-template-loopback.ts).
| 7/10 | Renewal outreach SMS+MMS — 12-mo at $1,150, portal link. Saga → OFFER_PREPARED. |
| 7/12 · 7/19 | Reminder nudges; later voice attempt no-answer. 15 days of silence. |
| 7/30 | AppFolio drops unit 607 market rent to $1,000. Offer not re-evaluated. |
| 8/3 14:06 | Paula emails "Hi Erika" — counter at $1,000 citing our website. |
| 8/3 14:06:54 | Clara: classifier said extract-only → active-thread override → renewal_escalate (counter-offer recorded on saga) → reply "I've flagged your request with the property team." |
| 8/3 14:07:21 | Clara's escalation email re-ingested by the same mailbox's webhook; classified by AI; skipped. |
negotiatingSince + the exact counter terms.Options: (a) Recommended — JP team (Erika) replies personally matching the $1,000 advertised rate (or their chosen number), and the offer is re-prepared via the normal guarded path; (b) hold at $1,150 and let the team negotiate; (c) Clara relays whatever the team decides. 28 days to lease end; she wrote to a human by name — (a) keeps the relationship human.
A synced PRICE_CHANGE drop on a unit with a live OFFER_PREPARED saga should
flag the saga (and the PM) that the offer now sits above our own list. Options: (a)
Recommended — flag + notify, never auto-reprice; (b) auto-hold outreach
until re-confirmed; (c) report-only in the weekly review.
When the escalating conversation's channel is email and its mailbox equals
Property.propertyEmail, suppress the redundant escalation email (saga record + thread
already inform the team) and have Clara's wording reflect "a person here will pick this up." Options:
(a) suppress as described; (b) keep the email but mark it so the
loopback detector eats it; (c) leave as-is.
Options: (a) keep as ruled — any open conversation engages, renewals included;
(b) carve out renewal/lease_document threads addressed to a named human —
extract + notify instead of autonomous reply; (c) keep engagement but require
greeting/disclosure and acknowledge the named addressee. (b) and (c) can combine.
Add renewal-escalation template markers to the loopback detector; render escalation/tool events in the conversation UI so "I've flagged it" is visible to the PM reading the thread.
17736259534620090 · person pers_32c6e495 · lease
lease_87c46bc1… (2025-09-01 → 2026-08-31, $1,150) · saga saga_fba0927a…
state OFFER_PREPARED, negotiatingSince 2026-08-03T14:06:55Z.PRICE_CHANGE#1773625953462-607#2026-07-30T22:28:00Z — 1150 → 1000,
source appfolio. Saga's policySnapshot.marketRent still 1150.EMAIL#ab68ed4e…, verdict
extract_operational, decisionOverridden: true via
thread-context-bypass.ts (30-day window).EMAIL#e77e25fc… (full AI classification);
compare EMAIL#eb1c5f10 caught in 0ms by own_template_loopback.agents/clara/lib/agent/tools/renewal/handlers.ts
(resolveEscalationEmail → Property.propertyEmail, no mailbox-identity
check).