[{"_1":2,"_3":-5,"_4":-5},"loaderData",{"_5":6,"_7":8},"actionData","errors","root",{"_106":107,"_108":109},"routes/embed.x.$handle.$name.$",{"_9":10,"_11":12,"_13":14,"_15":16,"_17":18,"_19":20,"_21":22},"handle","amir5","name","dogsspot_puppy_path","path","SOURCE-BUNDLE.part41.txt","project",{"_23":45,"_11":12,"_34":46,"_47":-5,"_48":42,"_49":50,"_51":50,"_52":53,"_54":-5,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":33,"_60":-5,"_61":-5,"_62":37,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":-5,"_72":73,"_74":73,"_75":76,"_77":76,"_78":76,"_79":73,"_80":73,"_81":82,"_83":84,"_85":86,"_87":42},"file",{"_23":24,"_11":14,"_25":26,"_27":-5,"_28":29,"_30":31,"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":17,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":-5,"_13":44},"permalink","https://www.val.town/x/amir5/dogsspot_puppy_path/code/SOURCE-BUNDLE.part41.txt","extension","txt","id","1cc2dcd3-66a2-4207-802b-898b594c7097","fileId","f8085986-9a55-11f1-969d-1607ee4eb77e","parentId","branchId","551774fb-a850-4c9d-94a1-d3509ddcf1b0","branchVersion",1212,"latest",true,"createdAt",["D",1786982944930],"version",0,"fileType","content","THE DOGS SPOT — SOURCE BUNDLE (part 41 of 47)\n\nEVERY source file in this project, engine/ included. Restoring these parts and nothing else gives\nyou a tree that builds, typechecks and runs its own test suite with no network and no val.\n\nengine/ is here as of 14 Aug 2026. It used to be left out because val 1bfa6e81-74e1-4c6c-ab32-118304a4ffff\nholds it, which was true of every engine file except engine/watch.ts: a module the val does not run,\nso it was never deployed, so it lived in one container and nothing else. A reclaim destroyed it.\nscripts/deploy.mjs --check still compares engine/ against the val file by file; that is a second\ncheck on the same files now, not the only copy of them.\n\nRESTORE (needs only node, from an empty folder). Save each part, then run this ON EACH ONE:\n\n node -e 'const fs=require(\"fs\"),p=require(\"path\");const b=fs.readFileSync(process.argv[1],\"utf8\");\n for(const s of b.split(\"\\n=====FILE \").slice(1)){const i=s.indexOf(\" =====\\n\");\n const f=s.slice(0,i),c=s.slice(i+7);fs.mkdirSync(p.dirname(f),{recursive:true});\n fs.writeFileSync(f,c.replace(/\\n$/,\"\"))}' PART.txt\n\nA record named #1, #2, ... is one FILE cut into pieces: concatenate them in order, then\nstrip one trailing newline from the last. scripts/restore.mjs does this for you.\n\nEach part is complete in itself: whole files only, no reassembly, any order.\n\nThen: node scripts/build.mjs (engine/ came out of these parts; nothing to fetch first)\n node scripts/typecheck.mjs\n node tests/run-all.mjs\n node scripts/deploy.mjs --check (pulls nothing, proves the val matches what you restored)\n node tests/negative-controls.mjs (proves the suite above can actually fail)\n\nIN THIS PART (3 of 129 files)\n MINED-HANDOVER.md 46731 bytes f1895abbfede\n reports/money-page.html 11987 bytes 70f842d82351\n reports/square-revenue-explainer.html 12814 bytes f400df3ceb81\n\n================================================================================================\n=====FILE MINED-HANDOVER.md =====\n# MINED HANDOVER — Kim Hicks / The Dogs Spot / Amir Aizhigitov\nCompiled 2026-08-09 by mining the files listed below. Nothing edited. Tags: VERIFIED = the source\ntext itself shows a verification step (live read, test, fleet-check); CLAIMED = asserted with no\nverification shown; STALE = superseded by a later file, cited. All citations are `file:line`\nagainst the copies in `/home/claude/restore/` at time of mining.\n\nFiles read in full: handover/RESUME.md, REGISTER-AUG5.md, REGISTER-AUG7.md, SWEEP-7-AUG.md,\nPLAN-TO-FINISH.md, AUTOPILOT.md, AMIR_TODO.md, DEPOSIT-SPEC.md, DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md,\nMESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt, SEND-TO-KIM.txt, REPLY-AUG5.txt, QUEUE.md.\n`handover/UPWORK-THREAD-FULL-9AUG.md` does not exist — checked, absent. No other top-level .md\nexists besides QUEUE.md — checked with `ls`.\n\n---\n\n## 1. THE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT\n\nNo retainer amount, milestone names, milestone amounts, or a submitted/paid/not-started table\nexist anywhere in the thirteen files read. This is a genuine gap, not an oversight in mining —\nconfirmed by full read of every listed file plus a grep for `retainer|milestone|per hour|contract|\nscope of work|invoice|fixed price` across all of `handover/` and `QUEUE.md`.\n\n1. The only sentence touching Amir's own pay: **\"Your retainer figure. Still the only line item on\n the page with no number against it.\"** `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:171`. VERIFIED-absence (read\n directly, dated 5 Aug); no later file (RESUME.md 7 Aug, QUEUE.md 9 Aug) revisits or resolves it.\n A grep of `reports/*.html` for \"retainer\" also returns nothing — the page referred to still\n carries no figure as far as any file here shows. STALE-open: 5 days old at the point of mining\n with no update.\n2. Dollar figures that DO appear are not Amir's fee: Kim's own product prices ($50/dog holiday\n deposit, $500 vs $250 bootcamp deposit — `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:66`), her ad spend\n ($718.98/week — `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:31`), and a **different client's** Asana task\n mentioning $1998, explicitly flagged as not-Kim: `handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md:111,124-125` (\"The\n Ariel Daunay and CoCreators work is a different client on a different stack\").\n3. No document states contract type (hourly vs fixed), start date, or weekly/monthly cadence of\n payment. The word \"Upwork\" appears only as the delivery channel for messages/reports, never as a\n contract-terms reference.\n4. Kim's own commercial asks to Amir are visible only as scope, not price: \"I absolutely wanna know\n what all this costs against what it brings in go ahead and do what needs to be done\" (approval to\n build reporting, not a payment instruction) — `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:68`.\n\n**Conclusion: Section 1 cannot be filled from these documents. Whatever the retainer/milestone\nstructure is, it lives outside this file set (Upwork contract terms page, a spreadsheet, or verbal\nagreement) — none of it is captured here.**\n\n---\n\n## 2. EVERY PROMISE TO KIM NOT YET DELIVERED\n\nDated, in-writing promises, most-recent message first. \"Today\" for staleness purposes = 2026-08-09\n(the date of `QUEUE.md`, the latest file in the set).\n\n1. **Deposit scope correction — DELIVERED.** Kim believed (6 Aug) the deposit feature blocks a\n booking; it only lists. `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:12-31` demands this be said \"plainly\" before\n anything else. It was said, in `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:10-22`, and `RESUME.md:24-30`\n states this message was sent 7 Aug 11:46pm and watched landing on Upwork. VERIFIED delivered —\n one of the few closed items.\n2. **Monday (10 Aug): July ROAS/attribution tracking check.** \"I want to check the tracking we built\n in July... Monday.\" `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:53-56`. Not yet due at time of the latest\n file (`QUEUE.md`, Sun 9 Aug). At-risk: `QUEUE.md:31-33` (item 5) shows the underlying work — the\n Square-value-onto-opportunity write that ROAS depends on — still OPEN as of 9 Aug 22:20 UK, held\n on Kim's own unanswered question (which card absorbs a multi-open-invoice payment) and on\n Kristian confirming his app doesn't also write the same field.\n3. **Monday (10 Aug): reproduce/fix \"page shows times but no dates.\"** \"I have not reproduced it yet\n and I will not tell you it is fixed until I have. Monday.\" `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:98`.\n No later file mentions this again — status unconfirmed in the set.\n4. **Tuesday (11 Aug): both calendars** (Free Training Day pick-up, 30 min slots 3:30-4:30pm;\n secondary Pup Talk calendar). `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:90-93`; also\n `REGISTER-AUG7.md:60-61`. **At risk**: `QUEUE.md:44-45` (item 10) \"Two calendars, tag cleanup,\n Free Training Day rebuild -> Correctly blocked by the Kristian freeze\" — i.e. as of 9 Aug this is\n explicitly recorded as blocked, one day before its promised date.\n5. **Wednesday (12 Aug): tag cleanup.** `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:101-103`. Same\n \"Kristian freeze\" block, `QUEUE.md:44-45`.\n6. **Wednesday (12 Aug): Free Training Day workflow rebuild**, done with Kim watching since it's her\n live workflow. `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:105-107`; `REGISTER-AUG7.md:64`. Same\n \"Kristian freeze\" block, `QUEUE.md:44-45`.\n7. **Thursday (13 Aug): Pups Club self-unsubscribe.** `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:109`. No\n later file mentions it — status unconfirmed.\n8. **\"This week\": nonrefundable-deposit wording added to customer copy.**\n `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:27`, also `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:16-19` (the wording must say\n \"shortlist to check,\" never \"who still owes\"). No later file confirms this shipped.\n9. **Bootcamp deposit figure/processor ($500 vs $250, PayPal vs Square).** Kim's correction:\n \"it should read $500... the payment was actually set up to go onto PayPal and not through\n Square.\" `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:66`. **Still open 9 Aug**: `QUEUE.md:41` (item 8) \"Which\n processor the Wix Bootcamp form charges through. -> OPEN. Two minutes on the Wix payments\n screen.\" Three days open as of the latest file.\n10. **Go-live on puppy follow-up (three switches together).** Promised as \"one coordinated move\"\n repeatedly: `handover/AMIR_TODO.md:21-23`, `DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:65-78`,\n `MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:73-75`. **Still 0% live 9 Aug**: `QUEUE.md:34-36` (item 6) — \"Still 0\n percent live, still waiting on a day and a window from Kim... She has never named a time, across\n four asks.\" This is the single largest standing promise in the set.\n11. **Ten minutes to discuss Kim's-name-vs-business-name trade-off** \"when you are back.\"\n `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:85-88`. No later file confirms this happened.\n12. **Candace's app freezing when loading messages — diagnosis owed.** Raised by Kim, acknowledged\n open in `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:89-91`, `REPLY-AUG5.txt:27`(\"I'd rather say that than guess\"),\n `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:201-204` (states it is \"a hypothesis about somebody else's code, not a\n finding\"). No later file reports a diagnosis delivered.\n13. **The Sunday 9 Aug 3pm EST / 8pm BST Kristian walkthrough — \"I will be there.\"** Draft at\n `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:9-26`. **Outcome not confirmed by any file in this set.**\n `QUEUE.md` is timestamped the same day (Sun 9 Aug, 22:20 UK — after the 8pm BST slot) and\n references \"the 11:00 meeting\" (`QUEUE.md:23,32`) but never states whether the 3pm EST call\n itself happened or whether Amir attended. This is the most time-critical unresolved item in the\n set and its resolution is simply not in these files.\n14. **\"I will send you a one page version on Sunday morning.\"** `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:19-20`.\n No file confirms this draft was ever sent (unlike the Friday report, whose sending IS confirmed —\n see item 1 pattern in Section 7). CLAIMED-intent only.\n15. **Manychat card-failure notice to Kim.** Drafted, `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:30-47`;\n registered as urgent and unsent in `handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md:62-73`. No file confirms it was sent.\n16. **\"I'll come back on them specifically\"** — missing call transcripts and Candace's app.\n `handover/REPLY-AUG5.txt:31`. Transcripts were later answered (`PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:197-204`, \"the\n recordings are all there... transcription is a separate switch,\" dated 5 Aug — CLAIMED, no\n later file re-confirms this reached Kim in those terms). Candace's app remains open per item 12.\n17. **Retargeting ad \"to be discussed.\"** `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:67`. No date, no later mention.\n18. **Four sending-domain lines for thedogsspotga.com (deliverability) + key rotation.** Kim is\n willing but needs step-by-step instructions: \"I'm happy to add the 4 lines but would need\n instructions on how and where to do it.\" `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:101-102`. **Still blocked 9\n Aug**: `QUEUE.md:37-39` (item 7) — \"BLOCKED, needs Amir's login. The browser now holds his own\n agency session, and The Dogs Spot is not a sub account of it. Ten routes logged in the previous\n queue entry, all failed.\" Newly-hardened blocker, not just an open task.\n19. **Google Ads build-out.** Long-standing: \"coded, never run against a live account... It gets an\n account and gets tested, or it comes off the list honestly.\" `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:194-195`\n (5 Aug). **Quantified and still open 9 Aug**: `QUEUE.md:42-43` (item 9) — \"Google Ads is 20\n percent, not 70. The connector is a stub that throws and discards its result... needs a developer\n token, about five business days.\" The \"20 not 70\" phrasing implies a 70% figure was stated\n somewhere (not located in this file set) that this corrects downward.\n20. **One-year-old dog boundary decision** — asked of Kim, never answered in any file read:\n `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:133`, repeated `handover/RESUME.md` questions ledger is silent on it\n specifically but the open-questions ledger format continues unresolved through to `QUEUE.md`.\n21. Standing ledger of unanswered Kim questions, repeated near-verbatim across three files without\n resolution: boarding cancellation policy (nothing on her website), Thanksgiving window edges\n (Mon-before to Sun-after), whether she offers daycare and at what price. Present in\n `handover/RESUME.md:147-151`, `REGISTER-AUG7.md:107-111` — carried forward unchanged, i.e.\n STALE-unresolved across at least two dated snapshots (7 Aug both times) with no later file\n revisiting them.\n\n---\n\n## 3. HER VOICE AND THE WRITING RULES\n\nAll quotes are Kim's own words unless marked otherwise.\n\n1. **American spelling, not British — a standing, repeatedly-enforced rule, not a one-off.**\n Evidence across three separate dates:\n - ~5 Aug: \"Potty training and yard now, and I went back through the rest of the older copy for\n the same thing and found a few more that read English rather than American... There is a check\n on it now, so it stays fixed rather than drifting back.\" `handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt:5`.\n - 7 Aug: her own correction, quoted and labelled explicitly: **\"how you're getting on\" → \"how\n it's going\". British.** `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:80`.\n - 9 Aug: a live violation reached her card page anyway — \"counter sales totalling\" — fixed and\n redeployed same day. `QUEUE.md:20-22` (item 3), verified live 21:06:20Z, \"zero 'totalling' on\n the page, one 'totaling'.\" Shows the rule needed re-enforcement a third time.\n2. **\"Daycare\" is a banned word in customer-facing copy — not a preference, a factual error.**\n \"Daycare is gone completely, and thank you for catching it, because that one was a proper mistake\n rather than a wording preference. It was in four separate messages offering a service you don't\n provide... there's now an automatic check that fails the whole build if the word ever reappears\n anywhere a customer could see it.\" `handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt:7`. Confirmed still enforced 7 Aug:\n \"'Daycare' was on her dashboard, which she instructed removed from customer copy.\"\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:802-803`. Cross-referenced open question: does she actually offer\n daycare (her own bio says yes, no page/price exists) — `handover/RESUME.md:149-151`.\n3. **Drop \"I got your message\" from Touch 2.** Her words: **\"What message am I replying to exactly?\"**\n Instruction: \"Keep the welcome, lose the reply framing.\" `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:72-73`.\n4. **Cut \"it's not a pitch,\" keep \"it's a conversation.\"** Her words: **\"I don't like that it keeps\n saying that it's not a pitch. Can we just leave off the part about the pitch and just tell them\n what it is rather than what it isn't.\"** `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:74-76`.\n5. **Cut negatives generally — \"I won't chase you,\" no-show/no-sale negative framing.** Her words:\n **\"I'd rather remove language about what I won't do and leave the more positive language in there\n that says they can call, they can reach out anytime.\"** `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:77-79`.\n6. **Kim's name vs. The Dogs Spot business name — a live open positioning question, not decided.**\n Her words: **\"is there a way to use the business name The Dogs Spot instead of my personal name or\n mix the two... if they've only ever been hearing from Kim they'll never get me on the phone but\n they'll get my team.\"** `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:81-85`. Recorded trade-off: a named human\n outperforms a business name on reply rate — she is to be told this before it changes, i.e. not to\n be actioned without explaining the cost.\n7. **Don't lean on data fields that are usually empty — the puppy's-name lesson.** Kim objected to\n the puppy's name appearing/not appearing correctly; root cause was that most inquiries arrive via\n Facebook/Instagram DM, which rarely carries a dog's name, so a name placeholder mostly rendered\n empty. Fixed by rewriting around the customer's own name instead of the dog's.\n `handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt:3`.\n8. **Rewrite the missed-Pup-Talk messages in Kim's own words, not the drafter's.** \"Both of the\n missed-Pup-Talk messages are your version rather than mine now, near enough word for word,\"\n including her own lines \"I know life gets busy\" and \"won't keep bugging you.\"\n `handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt:9`.\n9. **Greeting/sign-off convention observed consistently across all four Kim-facing message files**\n (not stated as an explicit rule anywhere, but uniform in practice): every message ends with the\n single word **\"Amir\"** — no \"Best,\" \"Thanks,\" or \"Regards\" — `handover/REPLY-AUG5.txt:37`,\n `SEND-TO-KIM.txt:37`, `MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:122`, all four `DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md` drafts.\n Opening greeting is NOT uniform: `SEND-TO-KIM.txt:1` and `REPLY-AUG5.txt:1` open \"Kim, ...\" (straight\n into the answer, no \"Hi\"); the drafts in `DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md` also use bare \"Kim,\"; but\n `MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:1` opens **\"Hi Kim,\"** — a departure from the pattern the other three\n files establish. Not flagged as an error anywhere in the text; noted here as an observed\n inconsistency, not a stated rule violation.\n10. **Explicit style rule for the stand-by reply drafts**: **\"No dashes anywhere. Answer in the first\n line.\"** `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:3`.\n11. **Recurring closing reassurance formula**, used verbatim or near-verbatim in multiple sent\n messages: \"Nothing has sent to anybody. Everything stays in practice mode until you say the\n word.\" `handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt:35`, `MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:120`; variant \"Nothing has sent\n to anybody from the new system, today included.\" `handover/REPLY-AUG5.txt:35`.\n12. **Own mistakes are to be owned to Kim explicitly, by name, not smoothed over.** Pattern used\n repeatedly: \"Three corrections of my own, because you should hear them from me\"\n (`SEND-TO-KIM.txt:21`); \"I also went quiet for two days before that. You should not have had to\n ask twice.\" (`MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:6`); \"The attachment. You didn't miss it, it failed to\n attach, and that's twice now, which is embarrassing.\" (`REPLY-AUG5.txt:15`).\n13. **The rendered deposit-card copy for HER CUSTOMERS (a related but distinct audience/rule)**: the\n word **\"unpaid\" must never appear** (`DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:32`), and after three rounds of a\n deny-list being defeated, the note text is now generated only from a small closed set of\n templates and matched exactly (allow-list), because \"a denylist over free prose cannot be\n completed.\" `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:851-856`. See Section 6 for the failure history behind this rule.\n14. **Cost-and-honesty voice**: when a figure cannot be verified, the rule is to say so rather than\n fill the gap. \"Where a figure could not be verified I have written that instead of filling the\n gap.\" `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:32`. Matches the build-side rule in Section 4/5 against\n inventing numbers.\n\n---\n\n## 4. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT\n\n1. **The five hard stops, never done without Amir \"however obvious they look\"**\n (`handover/AUTOPILOT.md:6-17`):\n 1. Anything that reaches a customer — no message, no live workflow switch, no triggering tag.\n Practice mode holds.\n 2. Anything that costs money or fixes a payment (Manychat card named explicitly).\n 3. Anything irreversible — deleting tags, contacts, workflows, calendars.\n 4. Anything needing Amir's identity — accepting the Kristian invite, joining the call, replying\n to Kim, accepting access invitations.\n 5. Editing a live workflow of Kim's, even one she has verbally agreed to let be rebuilt, until\n she has watched it happen.\n2. **\"What I will not do\" list** (`handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:212-219`): don't contact Kim directly —\n every question goes into the ledger instead; don't take anything out of practice mode without both\n her word and Amir's presence; don't invent a story, testimonial, customer or event to fill a gap;\n don't type a live number into a document — \"Anything countable is counted at render time\"; don't\n ship a finding that couldn't be independently stood up (one was dropped from the nurture review\n for this reason and the drop was itself documented).\n3. **The admin key must never reach Kim or be echoed.** \"Never echo it, never put it in anything Kim\n reads.\" `handover/RESUME.md:99`.\n4. **The val.town token, if recovered from a session transcript, must not be printed or filed\n anywhere Kim or a subagent can read.** \"extract it without printing it. Do not paste it into any\n file Kim or a subagent can read.\" `handover/RESUME.md:122-124`.\n5. **Do not act on another client's items from a session holding Kim's credentials.**\n `handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md:124-125`: \"The Ariel Daunay and CoCreators work is a different client on\n a different stack. Acting on it from a session holding Kim's credentials is how one client's data\n ends up in another's account.\" A full table of that other client's unrelated inbox items is\n logged but explicitly marked \"do not act on from this session,\" `SWEEP-7-AUG.md:104-123`.\n6. **The switch-over to go-live is one coordinated move, never solo, never in pieces.**\n \"TEST_MODE=false, old puppy workflow off, tagging on. Never solo.\" `handover/AMIR_TODO.md:21-23`.\n Justification given directly: doing it in pieces is what double-messaged Thomas.\n `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md:73-74`.\n7. **holiday-deposits.ts is structurally read-only** — \"Write NOTHING to the CRM. No tag, no field,\n no stage,\" enforced by a test asserting no POST/PUT/PATCH verb exists in the source.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:22-23,28-29`.\n8. **A live workflow of Kim's is not to be edited without her present**, even when she has endorsed\n the change in principle: \"she is open to redoing it... but it is a live workflow of hers and\n should be changed with her watching.\" `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:64`.\n9. **Accepting the Kristian calendar invite is Amir's identity and diary — nobody else's call.**\n `handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md:47`.\n10. **\"The Kristian freeze\"** — named in `QUEUE.md:44-45` as the reason two calendars, tag cleanup,\n and the Free Training Day rebuild are \"correctly blocked.\" **Not defined anywhere else in this\n file set** — its scope and trigger condition are referenced, not explained, in the documents\n read. Flagged rather than guessed at.\n11. **Do not widen the accusation-net regex again** — an explicit process instruction after three\n widenings all failed: \"Do NOT widen the regex a fourth time — make the note cell an allow-list by\n construction.\" `handover/RESUME.md:71-73`.\n12. **CONTRADICTION — GHL token regeneration.** `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:151-153` (5 Aug):\n **\"Do not regenerate the token — that changes it, which takes the engine offline and silently\n kills Kim's dashboard link, because her view key is derived from it.\"** Yet `handover/AMIR_TODO.md:10-13`\n (6 Aug) and `handover/RESUME.md:154-157` (7 Aug, the most recent instance) both instruct exactly\n that: tick the tags-view scope, Save, **Regenerate**, then paste the new token into both val env\n tabs. Neither later file acknowledges or rescinds the 5 Aug warning about the dashboard link\n breaking. Both sides given as found — not resolved by this mining pass.\n13. **CONTRADICTION — how many times the container reverted on 7 August.** `handover/RESUME.md:111`:\n **\"It reverted twice on 7 August — at ~15:10 and again at ~17:15.\"** `handover/AUTOPILOT.md:77`:\n **\"The container reverted five times on 7 August.\"** Both files are dated to the same day's work;\n neither cites the other's number. Given as found.\n14. **Practice mode / TEST_MODE is the operative safety rail**, verified live as recently as the\n newest file: \"testMode true, sent 0.\" `QUEUE.md:7`. A specific code guard is named: \"The guard at\n puppy_path_v1.1.ts:904 fails closed.\" `QUEUE.md:35`.\n15. **An engine hardening item was queued but its closure is not confirmed by name in later files**:\n \"add a TEST_MODE guard at the sendSms call site (today safety is contact-scoping to the dummy).\"\n `handover/REGISTER-AUG5.md:24`, repeated `handover/AMIR_TODO.md:25-26`. `QUEUE.md`'s \"fails\n closed\" language (9 Aug) is consistent with this having been done but does not name the guard the\n same way — treat as CLAIMED-likely-done, not confirmed-done.\n\n---\n\n## 5. TESTING AND QUALITY STANDARDS\n\nThe bar, as practiced (drawn mainly from `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`, `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md`,\n`RESUME.md`, `QUEUE.md`):\n\n1. **A negative control is not a second test — it is a fault injected into a temporary copy of the\n code, which must make one *named* test go red.** \"If the wrong test catches it, or nothing does,\n the control fails.\" `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:12-14`. Grown from 30 controls (5 Aug,\n `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:181`) to 203 (7 Aug, `RESUME.md:86`), with money-critical ones re-run on every\n single test invocation (7 then 6 then 7 — see item 6 below).\n2. **A test that executes zero assertions must be a hard failure, not a pass.** Proved by hollowing\n `H1` to `return scoped(N, label)`: printed PASS, identical check totals, fully green.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:759-764`. Fixed by having `ok()`/`eq()` increment an internal counter and\n failing any suite whose count is zero, ratcheted per suite.\n3. **Floors must be proven to have actually run**, not just counted. A whole suite can vanish (file\n deleted, renamed `.bak`, or added to an exclusion list) and `run-all` still print GREEN — proved\n three separate ways. `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:753-757`. Fixed: every key in a floor table must\n appear in the discovered suite list or the run is RED.\n4. **The behavioural build must actually be rebuilt before assertions run against it.**\n `run-all.mjs` previously imported `build/` for behaviour and `engine/` for structure, but never\n rebuilt — deleting the fix from source and re-running gave \"270 assertions passed, GREEN.\"\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:230-232`.\n5. **Structural checks must read comment-stripped source.** A forbidden call was removed but named in\n a `[was: ...]` comment; the check matched the comment text and stayed green.\n `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:61-64`; the corresponding fix and its own negative control (forbidden\n text placed only inside a comment) at `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:242-244`.\n6. **Money-critical logic gets re-proved on every run, not just once.** Six, then seven, \"money\n guards\" are re-injected and required to fail on every single test invocation, ~30 seconds cost.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:641-645,731-732`. Also fingerprinted (not matched by test name) so a\n fault under a kept name can't be swapped for a harmless one. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:770-771`.\n7. **Deny-lists over free prose are treated as fundamentally unable to complete** — stated\n explicitly as the conclusion after three widenings all failed: \"A denylist over free prose cannot\n be completed.\" `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:851-852`. The replacement standard is an **allow-list by\n construction**: every customer/Kim-facing sentence must be generated from a small closed set of\n templates, and the test reconstructs the expected string from the template plus the row's own\n data and demands an exact match — \"the same provenance-by-exclusion argument already used for the\n money figures.\" `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:853-856`.\n8. **Money provenance is proved by exclusion, not by substring search.** A substring check (\"does\n this figure appear anywhere in the notes?\") let an invented debt total pass because it coincided\n with a real row's figure. Fixed: strip everything the card was legitimately given; anything left\n over was invented. `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:709-716`.\n9. **\"Scope of zero\" — a zero must be shown to be a true population zero, not a narrow-scan\n artifact.** The go-live blocker used to read \"1,200 of your most recent contacts were checked\" —\n \"a scan size dressed as an answer.\" Replaced with reading all 5,544 contacts every page load, and\n the zero cross-checked against a full manual page-by-page walk that agreed exactly on three other\n tags before the zero was trusted. `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:110-116`. Same standard applied to\n revenue: \"0 of 5,768 opportunities are marked won, all time\" is stated as a full-population fact,\n not a sample. `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt:47`.\n10. **Live assertions over static numbers.** \"Type a live number into a document again\" is banned;\n \"Anything countable is counted at render time.\" `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:217`. Practiced\n repeatedly: \"watched live at 03:13:02Z,\" refresh timestamps quoted to the second throughout\n `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`.\n11. **Property-based testing at scale for the allocator**: 50,000 generated customers (round 7),\n 300,000 property cases (round 8), 460,000 randomised cases (round 10), 841,000 shuffles (round\n 14) — each looking for a specific invariant (disjoint payment coverability, order-independence).\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:366-368,439,550,785-788`.\n12. **Typecheck is a real gate, not cosmetic.** \"Nothing had ever typechecked this project\" — a field\n was added to a type and two object literals were never updated; esbuild strips types without\n checking, so the build was clean and 290 assertions were green over a real type error. Fixed with\n a Deno-aware `tsc` wired into `run-all.mjs`, re-injected to prove the gate fires.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:377-381`. It also once printed \"0 engine files, 0 real errors\" and\n exited 0 on an empty tree — a false green closed separately. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:774`.\n13. **Deploy verification checks both units and gates on the stricter.** `deploy.mjs` reports\n `main.ts` in both characters and bytes, \"At one point it read 79,815 characters and 80,137 bytes\n — '185 to spare' on one measure, over the line on the other.\" `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:264-266`.\n14. **val.town serves a cached copy immediately after a write** — a verify-by-read right after deploy\n shows the old hash and looks like a failed deploy. `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:22-24`. Treated as\n a standing trap, not a one-off (see Section 6).\n15. **Autonomous scheduling must be watched, not assumed.** The deposit refresh's cron was not\n trusted as \"working\" until the stored `at` timestamp was seen moving with nobody triggering it,\n and the *source* of the trigger (cron file vs. engine interval) had to be separately labelled in\n code rather than inferred — this took eleven-plus hours of explicit \"not yet observed\" caveats\n before being accepted. `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:76-81,196-203,276-283,396-406,415-431`.\n16. **Bundling must be recursive, and this was itself a live QA failure.** `bundle.mjs` only walked\n one directory level deep, silently dropping `tests/fixtures/`, which is why a from-bundle restore\n came back red. `QUEUE.md:16-19` (item 2). Fixed with a recursive walk and `.json` fixtures\n included; round-trip verified.\n17. **`restore.mjs --check` must show byte-for-byte agreement on every file** before a restore is\n trusted. `handover/RESUME.md:90`; re-confirmed post-crash in `QUEUE.md:9` (\"`deploy.mjs --check`\n then reported 'live matches local, every file'\").\n18. **Per-suite ratchets, not just a global floor.** A global floor of 100 assertions didn't notice\n when seven money-guard tests were deleted from one suite; fixed with a per-suite ratchet.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:449-451`.\n19. **The goal state, stated and never yet reached**: two consecutive CLEAN adversarial rounds.\n Fifteen rounds had run by 7 Aug and every one found something real\n (`handover/RESUME.md:74,86`, `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:832-856` — round 15 itself \"IN FLIGHT, NOT CLEAN\").\n20. **The 203/332 figures in `RESUME.md` (7 Aug) are themselves superseded** by `QUEUE.md` (9 Aug),\n which reports a rebuild after a second container reclaim at \"17 suites, 380 assertions, 0\n failed\" (`QUEUE.md:15`) — a different count, consistent with continued work, not a contradiction,\n but proof the numbers in any single file go stale within two days.\n\n---\n\n## 6. KNOWN TRAPS\n\n1. **Container/disk reversion to a stale snapshot — the single most expensive, most recurring\n failure mode in the whole set.** Recorded on: 4 Aug (`REGISTER-AUG5.md:31`, third time that day),\n 7 Aug twice per `RESUME.md:111` or five times per `AUTOPILOT.md:77` (see Section 4 contradiction\n #13), and again some time before 9 Aug per `QUEUE.md:5-9` (\"The container was reclaimed mid\n session. /home/claude/restore was gone entirely\"). Fix pattern each time: restore engine from the\n val's last-deployed state, restore everything else from the bundle's last-bundled state, rebuild.\n **The trap inside the trap**: those two restore sources can be from different points in time,\n producing a \"mismatched repo\" that looks like new bugs. `handover/RESUME.md:126-131`;\n materialised concretely at `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:809-815` (round 14 reversion cost \"roughly\n half this session's remaining budget\"). **The stated fix is procedural, not technical**: rebundle\n the instant the tree goes green, never at end of session. `RESUME.md:130-131`, `AUTOPILOT.md:77`.\n2. **val.town serves a stale/cached read immediately after a deploy.** A verify-by-read right after\n deploying shows the old hash and looks like the deploy failed. `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:22-24`.\n3. **`main.ts` is called `puppy_path_v1.1.ts` locally** — a naming trap called out explicitly as one\n of \"the two traps that cost time before.\" `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:21-24`.\n4. **A previous session's handover claimed a message was sent to Kim that was never actually sent.**\n \"The brief for this session described a message sent this morning covering the deposit\n correction... That message does not exist in the thread. So none of it has reached her.\"\n `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md:124-129`. This is a first-order trap for anyone trusting a prior\n session's own status claims without re-checking the live thread.\n5. **A claim to Kim was technically false the moment it was sent.** \"Nothing new will go to him\" (re\n Thomas) was contradicted three hours later by three legitimate booking-confirmation texts from a\n *different* workflow. `handover/REGISTER-AUG5.md:10-14`; acknowledged directly: \"bridge note\n corrects it,\" `handover/AMIR_TODO.md:8-9`.\n6. **Two different units subtracted from each other produced a wrong headline figure.** The watchdog\n reported 35 counter sales worth $23,463.99 against the dashboard's 40/$28,035.99; root cause was\n skipping rows with an email/phone and subtracting a count of journal *rows* from a count of\n *payments*. Fixed by having the watchdog import the dashboard's own function.\n `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:27-33`.\n7. **Same trap, twice in a row, on the watchdog's schedule.** First wrongly concluded the timer had\n \"never fired\" (it was firing daily, deliberately, per a week-old val.town chat instruction). After\n switching to hourly, wrongly concluded the timer was dead a *second* time because the write-up's\n own \"is this a scheduled run\" detector was broken (val.town passes an argument to the scheduled\n function that the code didn't expect). `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:39-52`.\n8. **A page quoted the author's own manual button-presses back to the client as if it were the\n system's schedule.** \"left to itself it runs about every 95 minutes\" was \"honestly measured off\n the wrong thing.\" `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:56-59`.\n9. **A structural check can be satisfied by a comment.** A forbidden call was removed and a `[was:\n ...]` comment added naming it; the test read the raw file and matched the comment.\n `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:61-64`.\n10. **Age-parsing regex order-of-operations bug.** Pattern expected \"3-year-old\" but real text read\n \"3 years and 4 months old\" — \"old\" trailing the months clause made it fall through to the months\n branch, misreading 3-years-4-months as 4 months. Caught by the project's own test after a\n rewrite reintroduced it. `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:87-89`.\n11. **The core \"money bug\" recurred through at least five independent code paths across nine\n adversarial rounds** — the single richest trap in the set. Rule: one $50 deposit must settle\n exactly one stay. Each round fixed one door; the next round found the same effective bug one\n layer deeper:\n - Round 3: `statusFor` was handed a customer's *entire* payment list per stay, so one payment\n cleared two stays at once. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:153-162`.\n - Round 4/6: the collapse-duplicate-payments step marked only the surviving id as spent, and\n later wasn't idempotent, so a second pass re-spent a payment that should have stayed spent.\n `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:219-223`.\n - Round 7: the \"what settles a stay\" rule and the \"what does it cost\" rule lived in two separate\n places and drifted — a two-dog stay paid by one $100 payment could clear while debiting\n nothing, so the same $100 settled a second stay too. A property test found this in 29% of\n multi-stay generated customers. Fixed by making one function, `qualifyingPayments`, the only\n source of truth for both questions. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:350-373`.\n - Round 9: `collapseSameMoney` folded a backfill record into a payment on amount alone with no\n date bound, so a real November and a real December $50 payment (14.6 days apart) were read as\n one, deleting a real deposit. Fixed with a 21-day bound. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:476-495`.\n - Round 11: the allocator was passed the *globally collapsed* payment list instead of the raw\n list, so a later payment could make an already-settled stay look completely unpaid.\n `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:603-618`.\n The pattern itself is named directly: \"the same money bug came back three times, one layer down\n each time\" (round 4-6) and a fourth and fifth time in rounds 7 and 9. `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:211-213`.\n12. **A test can be hollowed to a one-line stub and still print PASS**, with identical check counts.\n Demonstrated by deleting all five assertions from `H1`: \"86 passed, 0 failed, 327 checks,\n byte-identical to the honest run, GREEN.\" Only a negative control (which demands the specific\n test go red on a specific fault) catches this — self-reported check totals do not.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:759-764,634-645`.\n13. **`negative-controls.mjs` itself was silently truncated by an edit at least twice**, printing\n nothing and exiting 0 — which reads as \"all controls passed.\" Happened once mid-round-two\n (`DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:134-137`) and again in round 14 with the file cut to three entries\n (`DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:766-767`). Fixed with an `EXPECTED_CONTROL_COUNT` sanity check before anything\n runs.\n14. **A guard can be pinned by exact text and still be unreachable.** One statement inserted *above*\n a pinned block can kill both refresh schedules while leaving the pinned text, indentation, and\n identifier counts untouched, so the suite stays green while nothing actually refreshes.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:562-568,622-624`.\n15. **A single calendar failing silently overwrote a complete customer list with a partial one, at a\n fresh timestamp**, so missing customers got no row at all rather than an \"unknown\" row — the\n quietest possible failure mode, because `decideStore`'s refusal logic checked for empty/all-\n unknown/no-progress runs but not for \"fewer calendars answered than last time.\" Fixed by\n comparing calendar-response counts. `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:778-783`.\n16. **Nine separate crash conditions existed in the card-rendering function alone**, each capable of\n taking down the whole dashboard (non-iterable rows, a string where a number was expected, an\n unparseable timestamp silently skipping the staleness banner, an unrecognised state rendering a\n wrong-coloured dot, bidi-override and unbounded-length strings reaching the page from a public\n booking form, a UTC vs. local-time date-slicing bug). `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:790-797`.\n17. **The GHL API exposes contact notes but the earlier conclusion \"the CRM never sees Square money\"\n was wrong** — nobody had queried `/contacts/{id}/notes` before 6 Aug; Square payments were there\n all along, written in at least two different textual formats, and the same payment could appear\n up to five times with contradictory balance figures in the duplicates.\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:1-13,58-63`.\n18. **The knowledge base is readable via API, contrary to an earlier \"UI-only\" claim in \"the master\n handoff\"** (a document referenced repeatedly but not present anywhere in this restore tree — see\n Section 7). `handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:104-108`.\n19. **`GET .../calendars/events` may silently cap at 100 with no paging** — known for one endpoint,\n unconfirmed for the two calendar-read endpoints the deposit tracker depends on. Explicitly left\n as an open question rather than guessed: \"Guessing a threshold would be inventing one.\"\n `handover/RESUME.md:136-139`.\n20. **Two schedules (the cron file and the engine's own interval) can race**, and val.town's blob\n store has no compare-and-set to make the update atomic — accepted as an unfixable-by-design\n condition, with the guarantee narrowed to what can actually be true (whichever fires first wins,\n the other is a no-op) rather than a false stronger claim. `handover/RESUME.md:141-143`;\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md:429-431`.\n21. **A bridge-journal admin dump route was attempted and blocked.** `QUEUE.md:46-50` (item 11):\n ten routes tried, blocked by a masked `ADMIN_SECRET` with no API exposure. Directly corroborated\n by reading `DATA-PULL-evidence/bridge_journal_dump_2026-08-09.json` — its entire content is the\n literal string **\"forbidden\"**. VERIFIED by direct read (file outside the required list, read for\n cross-check only).\n\n---\n\n## 7. WHAT EACH FILE IS FOR, CURRENT OR SUPERSEDED\n\n1. **`handover/RESUME.md`** — \"Read this first\" state/recovery snapshot, updated live through the\n session of 7 Aug, timestamped 23:40 UTC. Current for its own day; **superseded** as the overall\n project-state document by `QUEUE.md` (9 Aug), which records a second container reclaim and further\n fixes after RESUME.md's last entry.\n2. **`handover/REGISTER-AUG5.md`** — Short fleet-verification addendum, late 5 Aug, fact-checking the\n claims in the message now identified as `REPLY-AUG5.txt`. STALE by design (an addendum to a\n specific sent message); content fully absorbed into later registers, not contradicted.\n3. **`handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md`** — The working register of Kim's unanswered thread, 6-7 Aug,\n including a same-day self-update (\"No message was sent to Kim today\") at its foot. The single\n richest source for her verbatim voice/copy requests (Section 3) and unresolved asks (Section 2).\n Current as of 7 Aug ~17:5x UTC; not contradicted by later files, only added to.\n4. **`handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md`** — A later, broader sweep (both email inboxes, Upwork, calendar),\n 7 Aug 23:16-23:35 UTC. Surfaces the Kristian Sunday-walkthrough urgency and explicitly separates\n Kim's items from an unrelated client's (Ariel Daunay/CoCreators). Most current same-day statement\n of what is blocked on Amir specifically.\n5. **`handover/PLAN-TO-FINISH.md`** — Dated 5 Aug 11:50, the earliest full status/plan document in\n the set. **STALE**: its own suite/control counts (11 suites, 151 checks, 30 controls) are an order\n of magnitude below 7 Aug's (332 tests, 203 controls) and 9 Aug's (380 assertions), and its\n \"door-opening\" action list (Meta app role, GHL scopes, retainer figure) is only partly resolved by\n later files. Still the source of several rules that are never contradicted later (Section 4 items\n 1-2), so not fully obsolete.\n6. **`handover/AUTOPILOT.md`** — Standing playbook for operating without Amir: hard stops, escalation\n table, schedule-verification method. Not dated in-file; cross-references match the 7 Aug cluster.\n Its safety rules are not superseded by any later file.\n7. **`handover/AMIR_TODO.md`** — Short personal punch-list, \"morning of 6 Aug.\" Superseded as a status\n report by `RESUME.md`/`QUEUE.md`, but its \"never solo\" switch-over rule and the GHL\n regenerate-token instruction persist uncontradicted into 7 Aug (see Section 4 contradiction #12).\n8. **`handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`** — The engineering build log for the holiday deposit tracker,\n fifteen adversarial rounds, 6-7 Aug, the richest source for Sections 5 and 6. Ends mid-round-15,\n explicitly **\"IN FLIGHT, NOT CLEAN\"** — not a finished spec. Partly continued/superseded by\n `QUEUE.md` (9 Aug), which records further fixes to the same feature (British spelling on the\n card, a bundling bug affecting its own test fixtures) after this file's last entry.\n9. **`handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md`** — Six pre-written reply templates for Amir to send verbatim or\n edited. Companion to `AUTOPILOT.md`. No file in the set confirms any of the six were actually sent.\n10. **`handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt`** — The full message text sent to Kim 7 Aug 11:46pm;\n sending and landing confirmed by `RESUME.md:24-30`. Current/delivered as of its date; several of\n its own promised dates (Section 2) are still pending or newly blocked per `QUEUE.md`.\n11. **`handover/SEND-TO-KIM.txt`** — An earlier message to Kim (no in-file date; content and a\n forward-reference to a dashboard-link message that `REPLY-AUG5.txt` then delivers place it at or\n just before 5 Aug — inferred from cross-file content, not stated). Superseded in substance: the\n two-options deposit framing it describes was later built out fully in `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`.\n12. **`handover/REPLY-AUG5.txt`** — Message to Kim dated by filename and content to 5 Aug, covering\n the Thomas incident, Kristina record merge, tag report, and delivering the dashboard link. This\n is the message `REGISTER-AUG5.md` fleet-verified; one of its claims (\"Nothing new will go to\n him\") is flagged false there (Section 6, item 5).\n13. **`QUEUE.md`** — The most recent file in the set, Sunday 9 Aug 22:20 UK, written after a *second*\n container reclaim. DONE/OPEN ledger format with proof-of-completion or blocker-and-attempted-\n routes for each item. This is the current state of record as of mining.\n14. **`handover/SOURCE-BUNDLE.part1-13.txt`** — Not read in full (outside the required list; grepped\n only). Per cross-references in the read files, this is a disaster-recovery text bundle of\n everything not already living on val.town (tests, scripts, handover docs), restorable via a\n command in each part's header, and used successfully to recover from the reclaim recorded in\n `QUEUE.md:6-9`. Grew from 3 parts (5 Aug) to 11 (7 Aug) to 13 present now.\n15. **`handover/TheDogsSpot-AllMessages.pdf`, `TheDogsSpot-First3Weeks.pdf`** — Not opened (outside\n the required list). Names and cross-references in `SEND-TO-KIM.txt:11` and `REPLY-AUG5.txt:15`\n suggest First3Weeks = the short customer-nurture attachment (six pages) and AllMessages = \"the\n longer companion with all forty-one\" messages — **CLAIMED/inferred only, not verified by direct\n read.**\n16. **`DATA-PULL-evidence/bridge_journal_dump_2026-08-09.json`** — Read directly (outside the\n required list, for cross-check). Contents are the literal word \"forbidden\" — corroborates\n `QUEUE.md` item 11's account of a blocked admin-dump route. VERIFIED.\n17. **Referenced but absent from this restore tree — checked directly, not found**:\n `handover/Before-the-walkthrough-with-Kristian.pdf` (cited `SWEEP-7-AUG.md:49`),\n `handover/Puppy-tagging-candidates.xlsx` (cited `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:80,132`),\n `handover/NURTURE-REVIEW-FOR-KIM.md` (cited `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:117`),\n `handover/TheDogsSpot-Friday-Report-7-Aug-2026.pdf` (cited `RESUME.md:31`),\n `DELIVERY/ENDPOINTS.md` (cited `RESUME.md:99`), and a document referred to only as **\"the master\n handoff\"** (cited `PLAN-TO-FINISH.md:104,164`), never named more specifically anywhere in the set.\n None exist anywhere under `/home/claude/restore` at time of mining — confirmed with `find`.\n18. **`handover/UPWORK-THREAD-FULL-9AUG.md`** — Named in the mining brief as \"if present.\" Confirmed\n absent.\n19. **Top-level `.md` files besides `QUEUE.md`** — none exist; confirmed with `ls /home/claude/restore`.\n20. **`engine/*.ts`, `build/*.js`, `scripts/*.mjs`, `tests/*.mjs`, `watchdog/*.ts`, `reports/*.html`**\n — the actual product code, tests, and rendered output the handover docs describe. Not part of\n the required reading list and not mined in full; noted only for completeness. A targeted grep of\n `reports/*.html` for \"retainer\" returned nothing, supporting Section 1's conclusion.\n\n\n\n=====FILE reports/money-page.html =====\n\n\nThe Dogs Spot, where the money is\n\n

\n\n

Where your money is, and what is missing

Every figure read straight from your systems on Sunday 9 August 2026. Nothing here is typed from memory or carried over from an older report. Where a number cannot be verified it says so instead of guessing.

\n\n

$17,564.00

Square money that completed and reached your CRM. $16,117.00 of it can be placed on a booking today. The remaining $1,447.00 cannot, and it is two different problems, not one. Both are set out below.

\n\n

The money Square has sent across

Completed

$17,564.00

36 payments. Real money, landed.

Still pending

$3,711.55

28 payments. Not yours yet, and worth a look.

Failed

$3,305.00

5 payments. Someone tried to pay you and could not.

\n \n \n \n

\n Completed, 71.5%\n Pending, 15.1%\n Failed, 13.4%\n

69 Square payment records in total, $24,580.55 across all three states. Every one of them carries a customer id, so the matching itself works. Eight are booked to a single nameless point of sale record rather than to a person, which is what a counter sale looks like when nobody took a name.

\n\n

The gap, in one sentence

The payment lands as a note on the customer's file, and nothing ever writes the amount onto the booking. The booking is the only place a report can add money up from.

That is the whole reason this page can show you what you spent but not yet what you earned. It is not a missing integration and it is not your team. It is one field that nobody fills in.

\n\n

What your bookings currently carry

Customer records

1,516

1,515 in Customer and 1 in Won and Paid.

Carrying a price

3.5% of them. The other 1,463 are empty.

Their total

$166,235.00

Every one last touched on 30 June. Nothing since.

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Program price on the record	Records	Value
$3,295	39	$128,505.00
$2,395	11	$26,345.00
$3,795	3	$11,385.00
All valued records	53	$166,235.00

Those 53 are the proof it can work. Somebody put prices on them once, on or before 30 June, and then it stopped. Six weeks of bookings since carry nothing.

\n\n

What happens the moment the amount gets written

Your rule, run against every payment you have. 36 completed payments, worth $17,564.00.

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

What happens to it	Payments	Value
Places itself. One booking open, so the money goes straight on it.	15	$7,880.00
Needs one of your team to pick. More than one booking open.	0	$0.00
Already has a value on the booking, so it is left alone.	15	$8,237.00
Cannot be placed, and it is two different problems. Three arrived against a record with no name on it at all. The other three name a real customer who has no card in your Customer column to put the money on.	6	$1,447.00
All completed payments	36	$17,564.00

Nobody has to do anything. You asked for a short list where a customer has more than one booking open so your team can pick the right one. Counting the bookings that matter, the ones in your Customer column, that list is empty today, so the second half of your rule never fires and no member of your team is asked to do a thing. If we ever widened it to count cards on your other boards, such as the review board, it would stop being empty, which is exactly why it is not widened.

Money recorded against bookings goes from $166,235.00 to $174,115.00 the moment it runs.

One thing to be exact about. Two of those 15 payments belong to the same customer and the same booking, so 15 payments fill 13 bookings, not 15. They have to be added together rather than written one over the other, and today the code would write one over the other. That is being fixed before anything is switched on, and until it is, treat the figure above as the target rather than the guarantee.

\n \n \n \n

\n Places itself, 44.9%\n Already valued, 46.9%\n Never placeable, 8.2%\n

Being straight about the first number you will see. This can only place money it can match to a person, so revenue starts at roughly 45 percent of completed Square money and climbs as matching improves. That percentage will sit on this page every time you open it, so a low figure is never a surprise and never a mystery.

And it cannot damage anything. It only ever fills a booking that is empty. Where a booking already carries a value, whoever put it there, it is left exactly as it is. It never overwrites, and every write it makes is logged with the payment it came from.

\n\n

Two things worth knowing that nobody asked about

178 review requests went out. 138 of them are still waiting for an answer that will never come.

Your review workflow sends the one to ten text and then waits for a reply with no time limit set, so anyone who does not answer sits in Survey Requested forever. 40 people did answer: 37 gave you a 10 and were sent the Google review link, 2 scored between 1 and 6, and 1 scored between 7 and 9.

The last step, tagging the card once you know what they wrote, is a manual one. The 5 Star, 4 Star and Bad Review columns all hold zero, so it has not been done yet. That means 37 people were asked for a Google review and there is no record of who actually left one.

Nobody is being asked twice. That question is now closed with a number.

You have two review workflows and they fire on different tags. 118 people carry the first tag, 2 carry the second, and nobody carries both. The newer one is the better of the two: it reads the reply properly and raises a task for a team member when somebody is unhappy or asks a question. The older one, which 118 people went through, has no such step, so an unhappy answer gets an automatic message and nobody is told.

\n\n

\n Where every number on this page comes from.
\n Payments: your CRM's own payment records, filtered to provider Square, all 232 rows read and 69 matched, 9 August.
\n Bookings and prices: every record in the Customer and Won and Paid columns, 1,516 of them, read page by page rather than sampled, 9 August.
\n Review pipeline: the count of cards in each column of your Review pipeline, read the same day.
\n Tag counts: your CRM's contact search, counted for each tag and for both together.
\n Nothing on this page was rounded, estimated, or carried over from an earlier report.\n

\n\n

\n\n\n\n=====FILE reports/square-revenue-explainer.html =====\n\n\nThe Dogs Spot, how Square money reaches your reports\n\n

\n\n

How Square money reaches your reports

Before and after, in plain steps. Every figure read from your own systems on Monday 10 August 2026.

\n\n

The short version.

Your Square money already arrives in your CRM and it already knows whose money it is. What has never happened is the last step: writing the amount onto the booking. Reports add money up from bookings, so a booking with an empty amount box counts as zero, which is why your revenue reads near nothing while the money plainly exists. That is one field, and it is the whole gap.

\n\n

1. What happens today

\n\n

A customer pays. Two ways, and they behave differently.

Either your team raises an invoice in the CRM and the customer pays it by card, which runs through Square behind the scenes, or somebody pays at the counter directly in Square.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Route	Payments	What it carries
Invoice raised in the CRM, paid by card	56	Arrives already attached to the customer. This is most of your real revenue.
Order form and manual charges	12	Same, attached to the customer.
Counter sale in Square with no name taken	8	Files against one nameless record. Nothing can ever place these.

The payment reaches your CRM and gets written onto the customer's file as a note. This part works and has done since 13 July. 69 Square payment records so far, and every single one carries a customer id.

Nothing writes the amount onto the booking. This is the missing piece. The note sits on the person. The booking, which is the card on your pipeline board, still has an empty amount box.

Reports add up from bookings, so they add up empty boxes. Revenue reads near zero. Return on ad spend cannot be worked out at all, because it is revenue divided by spend and the revenue half is missing.

\n\n

Where you stand right now.

Completed Square money

$17,564

36 payments, all landed.

Bookings carrying a price

Of 1,516. The other 1,463 are empty.

Their total

$166,235

Every one last touched 30 June.

Those 53 are the proof the field works. Somebody filled it in once, on or before 30 June, and then it stopped. Six weeks of bookings since carry nothing.

\n\n

2. What happens once the reconciliation runs

\n\n

It reads every completed Square payment and finds the customer it belongs to. It already can: every payment carries a customer id.

It looks at that customer's open bookings, meaning cards in your Customer column with an empty amount box, and applies your rule exactly as you wrote it.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What it finds	What it does
One open booking	Writes the amount on. No person involved.
More than one open booking	Puts it on an exception list for your team to pick. It never guesses.
No name on the payment	Reported separately as unplaceable. Never guessed at.
Booking already has a price on it	Left exactly as it is. It never overwrites anybody's number.

Every write is logged with the payment it came from, so any number on any report can be traced back to a card transaction.

Revenue becomes real. Your reports add up the amount boxes and get a number you can check against your bank.

Return on ad spend follows, on the Facebook side first. Facebook spend is already read live and automatically. Google spend is still typed by hand, so Google return on ad spend waits on that being connected properly.

\n\n

Run against every payment you have today, here is exactly what would happen.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Outcome	Payments	Value
Places itself. One booking open.	15	$7,880.00
Goes to the exception list for your team to pick.	0	$0.00
Booking already priced, so left alone.	15	$8,237.00
Cannot be placed, reported separately.	6	$1,447.00
All completed payments	36	$17,564.00

Your exception list is empty today. Not one customer is currently sitting on more than one open booking, so the second half of your rule never fires and nobody on your team is asked to do anything. That is counting the bookings that matter, the ones in your Customer column.

Money recorded against bookings goes from $166,235.00 to $174,115.00 the moment it runs. Two of those 15 payments belong to the same customer and the same booking, so they get added together rather than one written over the other, which means 15 payments fill 13 bookings.

\n\n

Being straight about the first number you will see.

This can only place money it can match to a person and a booking, so revenue starts at roughly 45 percent of completed Square money and climbs as matching improves. That percentage sits on the page every time you open it, so a low first month is never a surprise and never a mystery.

\n\n

3. What your staff actually have to do

\n\n

Nothing routine. Here is the honest list.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Task	Who	How often
Take a name at the counter when somebody pays without one.	Front desk	Only fixes future payments, not past ones. Eight so far have no name.
Pick the right booking when a customer has more than one open.	Whoever you nominate	Zero times today. The list is empty.
Moving cards into Customer	Nobody	Already automated. Noted, and thank you for the correction.
Anything else	Nobody	The rest is automatic.

\n\n

The corrected unmatched figure you asked for

\n\n

You were originally told 42 counter sales worth $33,535.99 could not be matched. That was wrong and it was our error. The code that produced it only ever looked at the first attempt to match a payment, so a payment that matched successfully on a later attempt stayed on the unmatched list permanently.

Corrected and re derived from raw:

Genuinely unmatched

Counter sales, not linked to a name.

Their value

$22,651.99

Overstated before by $10,884.00.

Have a partial trail

$2,829.99. Something to work with.

Nothing at all attached

$19,822.00. No name, email or phone.

Why this is a different number from the $1,447 above, and both are right. The $1,447 is completed payments your CRM has a record of that cannot be placed on a booking. The $22,651.99 is everything the till has taken, including counter sales that never became a CRM payment record at all. The till list is the bigger one because it sees more. They answer two different questions and it is worth keeping both.

\n\n

\nWhere every number here comes from.
\nPayments and routes: your CRM's own payment records, all 233 rows read, 69 matched to Square, 10 August.
\nBookings and prices: every record in the Customer and Won and Paid columns, 1,516 of them, read page by page rather than sampled.
\nCounter sales: the Square bridge journal, read the same day, after the calculation error above was corrected.
\nNothing here was rounded, estimated, or carried over from an earlier report.\n

\n\n

\n\n\n","deleted",false,"label",[14],"1bfa6e81-74e1-4c6c-ab32-118304a4ffff",["D",1785429259053],"deletedAt","legacyEnvVars","privacy","public","httpPrivacy","description","Puppy path nurture engine v1.2 — The Dogs Spot","imageUrl","userId","d26e64e6-cd39-4be1-b5b4-1de11cc555f8","pinnedFileId","ad633fec-8e73-11f1-b800-1607ee4eb77e","pinPreview","pinMigrated","screenshotVersion","likeCount","orgId","019f56fd-bd59-724f-8163-80ffcf8235dd","tursoName","1bfa6e8174e14c6cab32118304a4ffff","tursoHostname","1bfa6e8174e14c6cab32118304a4ffff-val-town.aws-us-east-2.turso.io","tursoMeasuredAt",["D",1789519842404],"pinned","userPerm","r","valPerm","blobPerm","rw","emailPerm","sqlitePerm","projectPerm","telemetryPerm","user",{"_9":10,"_105":101},"org",{"_9":10,"_98":99,"_100":101,"_55":56,"_102":103,"_104":42},"branch",{"_36":88,"_11":89,"_23":29,"_90":45,"_91":-5,"_92":-5,"_93":-5,"_94":-5,"_95":-5,"_96":12,"_97":10},"isOwned",1233,"main","projectId","forkedBranchId","forkedBranchVersion","forkedProjectPrivacy","forkedProjectId","forkedProjectOrgId","projectName","userHandle","displayName","Amir","avatar","https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/ACg8ocILk3bwhcvrzozUWm7gxlKoBm7ZGtsgIkesW3ysOOsJ1rSQuA=s96-c","tier","free","canRestrictVals","profileImageUrl","ctx",{"_81":-5,"_139":140,"_141":142,"_143":144,"_145":42,"_146":42,"_147":42,"_148":33,"_149":-5,"_150":-7,"_151":-7,"_152":37,"_153":42,"_154":42,"_155":-5,"_156":42,"_157":42,"_158":42,"_159":-5},"ENV",{"_110":111,"_112":113,"_114":89,"_115":116,"_117":118,"_119":120,"_121":122,"_123":124,"_125":126,"_127":128,"_129":130,"_131":132,"_133":134,"_135":136,"_137":138},"REACT_APP_SENTRY_DSN","https://586020d86f05489db63a554690acf1e9@o1398359.ingest.sentry.io/6724499","RENDER_GIT_COMMIT","e87eb04e707cf64e7e532c8e8ec395f209e17f15","RENDER_GIT_BRANCH","POSTHOG_API_TOKEN","phc_nmoyuAkStEZuUp69rYlg1DZgrIt19Gx0Y4Hwf8tGgJP","POSTHOG_API_HOST","https://wart.val.town","WEB_API_TEMPLATE","https://{val}.web.val.run","APP_URL","https://www.val.town","MODULE_URL","https://esm.town","VANITY_WEB_API_TEMPLATE","https://{label}.val.run/","DENOLS_URL","https://lsp.val.town","NODE_ENV","production","CLOUDFLARE_TURNSTILE_SITE_KEY","0x4AAAAAACtaIZJH7s9rBMZ6","GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID","875989696899-jtsqkhlbdv5jrlsk8631p7ipjg3c6o62.apps.googleusercontent.com","STRIPE_PUBLISHABLE_KEY","pk_live_51N2zvWEpZTTLipIkVEwXrUG9AT0yeOOEYxszarZT1jpsZV58Ly6wlg3SltZpHN26CUalOBmUSY7adQRQiSkCZz2500qSXNkf8Y","API_URL","https://api.val.town","orgs",[],"preferencesKeybindings","default","preferencesTheme","light","preferencesFixers","preferencesCopilot","preferencesSelectionAi","preferencesCloseBrackets","preferencesChatPanelState","preferencesDprint","preferencesDenofmt","notificationCount","flagDenols","isBusinessOrgMember","businessOrgHandle","isBusinessOrgAdmin","isHigherTownieTier","navCollapsed","currentOrgId"]