Staff notices: send, hold, and what each must carry

When Clara sends an email to a client's team after a call she could not finish herself (message taken, missed call, nobody picked up the transfer), when she stays quiet, and what every notice must carry.

Status: Proposed — pending Fede's review. Nothing here is built. As of 2026-09-22, 2:05 PM MT. Scope: two clients, last 14 days: Camellia (13 notices) and Western Slope (9 notices).

Latest (9/22, 3:10 PM MT): every team-facing email and text, audited

Fede's ruling that triggered this: “we need to audit every single email and notification, we can't have different implementations in scattered places.” We went through every code path that emails or texts a client's team (property managers, leasing, maintenance) about a call, message, lease event, or digest, and checked it against the same five rules PR #10677 was fixed for: real property name, one clickable phone number, a consistent “Clara” sign-off, a link back to the record, and a write to the delivery log Fede pointed at.

Found, ordered by impact

1. The tenant-identity confirmation text Clara sends a PM (“can you confirm this caller is who they say they are”) never names the property, so a PM on more than one property can't tell which building it's about.
2. The “call this prospect in an hour” nudge before a virtual tour names no property, prints a raw unformatted phone number, has no sign-off, and no link back to the record.
3. Three different “Clara” sign-offs coexist, each from a separate, correctly-dated owner ruling that never reached the other two: bare “Clara” (ruling 9/1), “Clara” plus the property on two lines (ruling 8/14), and “Clara — Property” on one line (ruling 8/31).
4. The whole decision-request email family (matters, replies, nags) never makes a phone number clickable, and prints the property name twice in every send.
5. Recipients are resolved by one shared helper across the lease/renewal family, which is good — but the message bodies themselves are hand-rolled separately in about 14 files, and none of them sign off as “Clara.”
6. Only 3 of roughly 17 email call sites mark themselves as staff mail. The rest may be getting held by the same “company not live yet” gate that's meant only for prospect email — which would contradict Fede's 9/17 ruling that staff notices shouldn't be coupled to that gate. This needs a trace to confirm.
7. The label used to categorize each email (routine notice vs. marketing outreach) is inconsistent — many staff notices fall into the “outreach” bucket, which is meant for marketing.
8. If a property lookup fails, a raw internal property id can leak into the subject line of a vendor notice instead of the real property name.
9. The “guest card not created” notice (sent when Clara couldn't log a caller as a lead in AppFolio) has no sign-off, a raw unformatted phone number, and no link.
10. Weekly digest emails never sign off as “Clara,” and one of them has its own separate copy of the phone-number formatter instead of reusing the one other notices use.
11. None of these sends write to the delivery log Fede pointed at.
12. One digest has a hardcoded recipient: an internal-only summary that always goes to fede@, not a client.

Recommendation

Build ONE shared notice builder, seeded from the missed-call note — the only template today that gets the property name, phone number, sign-off, and link all right. Promote its property-line, phone-formatting, and sign-off pieces into a shared module, and move every path listed below onto it. Digests are a different genre (a weekly rollup, not a single-incident note) and should get their own shared digest shell instead of joining the incident-note builder.

Investigation only. No code changed. Building the shared builder is the next lane once Fede lifts “no new builds”; each path moves in its own small PR.

Latest: what we already knew about each caller (9/22, 2:00 PM MT)

Fede's rule: if a caller is someone we already have a file on — a resident, a future resident, an applicant, or a prospect with a guest card — the staff notice has to say what we know about them, not just repeat their own words back. We checked every notice from the last two weeks against AppFolio and our own records to see how often that happened.

Of the 22 notices, 7 were about people we already had a file on — 5 different people (one of them, Jordan Miller, called three separate times). None of those 7 notices used what we already knew. Every one of them only repeated what the caller said out loud on that one call. The other 15 notices were unknown numbers, vendors, or automated alarm calls with nothing to match — not in scope for this pass.

The three facts we had on file and left out most often:

1. Their lease or move-in status from AppFolio — whether they're an active resident, a lease that starts soon, or a prospect already assigned to someone on staff.
2. That it was a repeat call — how many times this same person had already called about the same thing.
3. The unit or property — even when it was sitting right in our own records, the notice only showed it if the caller happened to say it out loud themselves.

Checked and NOT counted as "on file": Inel González (2 calls, 9/21) — she gave her name and a callback number, but she has no resident, prospect, or application record in our system, so there was nothing more to add. Priya (Western Slope, 9/14) could not be matched to a person record in the time available for this pass — flagged as unresolved, not as "nothing on file."

Camellia: names and guest cards on leasing calls, last 14 days (9/22, 2:45 PM MT)

• No guest card was written for any call. Writing guest cards from phone calls is a setting, and Camellia has it off at company and property level. The best call of the window, full name and a booked virtual tour, produced no card for that reason.
• 7 callers were already known by phone number, so no name was needed. 5 were asked and gave one; 3 gave a first name only.
• 6 calls went to a person with no name captured. The prompt has no instruction to get a name before a transfer. On one, the caller said his name on the voicemail and it survives only inside the voicemail text.
• "Ask early" is loose in practice: the five asks came between 13 seconds and two minutes into the call.
• Yale 25 Station had no calls in the window; it shares the exact prompt with Camellia.

Investigation only. Nothing changes at Camellia or Yale until Fede says so. Two candidates: turn on guest cards from calls for Camellia (a setting), and the name-before-transfer line (the same rule going into the scattered-homes flow now).

1. What the last two weeks look like

Half of what we send is thin. Western Slope's leasing inbox got 8 emails in one day, 3 of them from one caller in 17 minutes.

1a. When we send today, and when we don't

Western Slope, Mon 9/21 through Tue 9/22 11:10 AM.

• We notify only when nobody picked up or a voicemail was left.
• A call forwarded to the maintenance call center gets nothing (all four maintenance calls Tuesday morning).
• A call that ends before Clara captures anything gets nothing.
• A connected call gets nothing.
• Kat and Beverly are never addressed individually.

Every one of the 10 sends was accepted by the email provider, from our own delivery log. So “not consistently receiving” is about which calls produce an email, not delivery.

Also found: the Dylan Lewis notice at 9:52 AM Tuesday first failed with “SendGrid key missing” in one runtime, then was re-sent successfully at 9:53 AM from another. Needs its own fix.

2. What the clients and the team said (verbatim)

• Jason Fish, Western Slope, email to hello@, 9/21 4:01 PM: "Kat and Beverly are not consistently receiving email notifications… Some notifications lack enough context to determine whether follow-up is required." Asked for: "Prospect name / Property discussed / Contact information / Conversation summary / Requested follow-up action."
• Jason Fish, 9/21: "Many Clara notifications and guest-card communications do not indicate which property the prospect is inquiring about."
• Sean, #tickets-bugs, 9/21: "These emails are missing information and unclear… these are people who asked to speak to a human. should have basic message information… it should also always say the property name, their name, contact number and what they called about and a link to the conversation."
• Fede, 9/22 7:34 AM, on the Holder Security notice: "What does system unable to process voice response mean. No need to say no additional details or repeat the phone number twice."
• Fede, 9/22 10:30 AM: "We should not send notifications with no description at all… what was the call about, their name at least… if someone doesn't give us the basic information we need then we just don't notify and they can call again… it's just noise."

3. Real examples: what we sent, what was wrong, what it should have been

Example 1 — one caller, three emails, nothing in any of them

Caller (443) 248-4535, Western Slope, Mon 9/21. This was Western Slope staff testing. Calls 1 and 2 (1:33 and 1:34 PM) said "leasing," then "I wanna talk to a live agent." The recording picked up the ring-list phone in the same room saying "You have a call… press one? The call is disconnected" — the press-1 accept step failed to bridge the call. (The hunt was changed to a plain forward later that day; a 4:33 PM call reached Kat.) Call 3 (1:50 PM) asked what was available at Ember Estates, heard about the 3-bed duplexes and prices, asked for addresses, said "book a showing for 367 Ember Lane," then asked for a live person. Nobody connected.

Subject: Missed call — I'm gonna use this as a third time…

Subject: +14432484535 — I wanna talk to a live agent

Subject: Missed call — On the I'm

Subject: Caller wants a showing at 367 Ember Lane, asked for a person 3 times
Property: Ember Estates
Called at 1:33, 1:34 and 1:50 PM. On the third call, asked about the 3-bed duplexes at Ember Estates and wanted to book a showing at 367 Ember Lane. Asked for a person each time; nobody was connected.
Call back: (443) 248-4535
Clara
<conversation link>

Example 2 — an alarm-company robocall, written like a mystery

Holder Security, Camellia, Tue 9/22, 7:45 AM. An automated low-battery alert. Clara could not get anything out of it because it is a recording.

Subject: Holder Security — Automated call from Holder Security reporting a low…
Property: Camellia Apartments
Holder Security called at 7:45 AM, after hours. Automated call from Holder Security reporting a low system battery alert at Camellia House Apartments. Caller phone: +18009323822. No additional details were provided — the system was unable to process voice responses. Team should follow up with Holder Security directly.
Can someone call them and see what they need? (800) 932-3822
Clara

Subject: Holder Security alarm: low system battery (automated call)
Property: Camellia Apartments
Holder Security's alarm system left an automated message at 7:45 AM: low system battery at Camellia House. If you want to check it, they are at (800) 932-3822.
Clara

Example 3 — we knew her name two hours earlier and forgot it

Inel González, Western Slope, Mon 9/21. First call 8:38 AM, employment verification, name and callback captured. Second call 10:47 AM, same topic, nobody picked up.

Subject: Missed call — Verify job
+18666192521 called at 10:47 AM asking "Verify job"; the transfer went unanswered.
Can someone call them and see what they need? (866) 619-2521

Subject: Inel González called again about the employment verification
Inel first called at 8:38 AM and again at 10:47 AM. Nobody picked up the second time. She still needs the employment verification.
Call back: (866) 619-2521
Clara
<conversation link>

Example 4 — a police officer treated like a routine voicemail

Officer Barrett, Grand Junction Police, Western Slope, Mon 9/21, 1:26 PM, about a search warrant at 1303 North 15th Street, unit 3.

Subject: Missed call — I this is Officer brown with the grand…
A caller called at 1:28 PM. I this is Officer brown with the grand Junction police Department for call Uh, calling about a property that you…
Can someone call them and see what they need? (970) 852-1460

Subject: Grand Junction Police called about a search warrant, 1303 N 15th St unit 3
Property: 1303 North 15th Street
Officer Barrett called at 1:26 PM about a search warrant for unit 3. Nobody on the ring list picked up. He asked for a call back today.
Call back: (970) 852-1460
Clara
<conversation link>

Example 5 — two names in one email

Fairhaven test line, Fri 9/18, 11:55 AM.

Subject: Jordan — Priya Ramirez has a question about the application…
Jordan called at 11:55 AM, after hours. Priya Ramirez has a question about the application process — specifically how long it takes to hear back after applying.…
Can someone call Jordan back? (720) 586-4069

Example 6 — a fragment that should never have gone out

Camellia, 9/15, 3:07 PM. Caller connected, said "Stu- studio, October 1st," went silent, hung up. Sent as "Missed call — Stu- studio, October 1st." Under the rule below: no notice. The caller can call back.

Example 7 — a good one, and what it still misses

Dylan Lewis, Western Slope, 9/22, 9:53 AM: name, unit, property, phone, topic all present. Still missing: his own words ("Move in," and that he was asking about his October 1 move-in), the conversation link, which the missed-call template has and this one does not, and his status from AppFolio: future resident, moving in October 1, which is what tells the team it's urgent.

Example 8 — a good call, a bad record

Lynn, Western Slope, Tue 9/22, 11:08 AM. Owner of a 2-bed home on 24 acres in Montrose, looking for a property manager. Said "something else"; with no catch-all line configured, Clara rang the leasing list. Kat answered. 3 minutes 40 seconds. Kat took her number; Jay Taylor to call her back Thursday.

Topic: leasing
Connected to Kat · 3:40
Lynn (Montrose) wants Western Slope to manage her 2-bed home on 24 acres. Kat took her number; Jay Taylor to call her Thursday.

4. What a leasing call is for

Fede, 9/22: the goal on every leasing call is to answer the caller’s questions, sell, and book a tour live on a specific home, or match them to one that fits what they want. If that can’t happen yet, the call must at least produce a guest card: full name, a way to reach them (the phone from caller ID, or email when they wrote in), and the property. The guest card is the unit of work: a person or an agent can follow it up, ask them to tour, or get them to apply. Without it there is nothing to act on. The name rule below exists to serve that ladder, never to slow the sale.

Separate investigation, not part of this page: whether Clara knows on a call that a named home is no longer available and offers a match, as she does on email and text.

Proposed for the PropFlow CRM as well: a prospect record needs at least a name, one contact method and a property, like other CRMs require.

5. Proposed rules

Send only when both are true:

1. We know what the call was about, in a sentence a person can act on. A cut-off fragment, an IVR prompt, or "wants a person" with no reason does not count.
2. We know who called: a name they gave, or a match to a resident, prospect or vendor on file.

If either is missing: no email. The caller can call back. Exception: when a caller asks for a person and nobody picks up, that fact is still worth one line. It rides on the caller's thread if one exists; if nothing else is known about them, it is sent once per caller per day, at the end of the first such call, and later ones append to it.

Context adds up across calls. The "enough to send" check runs at the end of every call, using everything we already know from that caller's earlier calls the same day: name, property, what they need, callback number. A thin call sends nothing, but its facts carry forward. The first call that crosses the line sends one notice with the whole picture (“called three times since 1:33; on the third asked for a showing at 367 Ember Lane”). A call that has enough on its own sends right away; nothing is ever held back.

Full name as soon as we know the property. A guest card needs three things: the phone (free from caller ID), the caller's full name, and the property. Clara asks for the full name the moment a property is known: right after a caller names a home; when she lands on a specific home for someone looking around; and before connecting anyone who asks for a person, whether or not a property came up. Once, then a thank-you by first name and on with the call. If the caller declines or gives a first name only, she continues and asks once more at booking time. A known caller is greeted by name and not asked. Name and phone without a property stay on our own record until a property shows up. Proposed, pending Fede's go.

Every notice carries, in this order: the property (the real one, never the company name), who called and their number once, what they said they need (their words when they are clear), what happened (message taken, nobody picked up, after hours), the ask for the team if there is one, "Clara", the conversation link.

Known callers carry what AppFolio knows. Fede, 9/22: when the caller matches a resident, future resident, applicant or prospect on file, the notice adds the record's facts so the team can judge urgency at a glance: property, unit, their status (current resident, moving in, applicant, prospect), the move-in or lease date, and anything already open on the record (a work order, a balance). Dylan Lewis's notice should have read "future resident, 566 Placer Street, moving in October 1" on its first line. The same applies to anyone already in the system, a guest card or a prospect included. The notice is built after the call, offline, so there is time to look the person up: the home they asked about, tours booked or missed, an application in progress, and what they said on earlier calls or texts. The notice tells the team who this is and where they are in the process, not just that a call was missed.

Never: the caller's last words as a subject, the phone number twice, "no additional details," explanations of what Clara could not do, a callback ask for a robocall, the company name where the property goes, and "(line)" or any internal label; when the property is unknown the Property line is simply omitted.

One caller, one email thread per day. The first call with a real ask sends immediately. A later call from the same person within 24 hours is a reply on that same thread ("called again at 10:47, still needs the employment verification"), never a new stranger email. We never hold a notice to wait for more calls.

Safety and authority callers are not notices: police, fire, a lockout, a leak, a person in trouble ring the list now. The email is the record, not the alert.

Robocalls: an alarm company's automated call gets one short line (Example 2). Any other robocall gets nothing.

Every thread opens with one plain line of what happened: connected to <name> · duration, nobody picked up, forwarded to the call center, message taken, or dropped on transfer — plus the caller's stated name and a two-line summary. Forwarded calls get a short record line too. New-management leads (someone asking Western Slope to manage their property) file under "leasing," the same as any other leasing call.

6. Delivery problems found on the way (need their own fix, not a design)

• Delivery is not the problem. We have a delivery log of every email Clara sends (kept 30 days). All 10 Western Slope notices from Mon 9/21 to Tue 9/22 were accepted by the email provider on the first try. Jason's "not consistently receiving" is about which calls produce an email at all, not about emails getting lost. See the section on when we send.
• The 9:29 AM maintenance notice did not reach our observer inbox while every other one did. The delivery log does not record the copy-to addresses, so it cannot say whether the copy was attached. Still open; a small fix adds the copy addresses to the log.
• The Dylan Lewis notice at 9:52 AM first failed inside a part of our system that has no email key ("SendGrid key missing"), then went out a minute later from another part. It worked by luck. Needs its own fix: one sending path, or the key in both.
• We do not store the text of "message taken" emails, only a summary line, so a quality check after the fact is blind on 7 of the 22 notices. The template PR in review stores the full body.
• Two email templates exist (missed call, message taken); only one carries the conversation link. The template PR merges them.

7. Decisions for Fede (pick one per line)

1. Decided 9/22: thin calls send nothing; their facts carry forward; the first call with enough information sends one notice with the whole picture. Open sub-question: does a concrete ask plus a callback number count as enough when no name was given? Recommendation: yes, and Clara asks for the name before any transfer.
2. Repeat callers: (A, recommended) update the earlier notice within 24 hours; (B) separate emails, capped at one per caller per day.
3. Decided 9/22: alarm or utility systems get one short line with no callback ask (Example 2); every other robocall stays silent.
4. Test the rule before it ships: (A, recommended) replay the 22 notices above plus the next 7 days of live calls in shadow, publish the would-have-sent versus sent table, then turn on; (B) ship the rule now as a bug fix.

8. What happens after the pick

The replay table (section 6, item 4) goes on this page. The template PR already in review handles the property line, the sign-off and the phone format. The send/hold rule, the folding, and the identity carry-forward are one small PR each after Fede's pick. Nothing is built before that.