[{"_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.part45.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.part45.txt","extension","txt","id","d49f226b-f2bd-4fc6-aa61-71fde9a65470","fileId","fb403b78-9a55-11f1-ad17-1607ee4eb77e","parentId","branchId","551774fb-a850-4c9d-94a1-d3509ddcf1b0","branchVersion",1216,"latest",true,"createdAt",["D",1786982950328],"version",0,"fileType","content","THE DOGS SPOT — SOURCE BUNDLE (part 45 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 (8 of 129 files)\n LESSONS.md 18343 bytes fe07a0bc0b79\n handover/RESUME.md 8766 bytes b52018ea0252\n handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md 10172 bytes d18a3dbd5e02\n handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md 6685 bytes c1bad79bc258\n handover/AUTOPILOT.md 5756 bytes 5fb74d8737b3\n handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md 3945 bytes 7346f037f0ce\n handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt 6553 bytes 26e5785ba858\n reports/Friday-Report-7-Aug-2026.html 15113 bytes 29b45b54bf09\n\n================================================================================================\n=====FILE LESSONS.md =====\n# LESSONS.md — what this account has already paid to learn\nRead before every task. Append after every failure. Convert every rule into a test.\nFormat per entry: WHAT happened · ROOT CAUSE · THE RULE · EARLY DETECTION\n\n## Seed, 11 Aug 2026, from the project's own history\n\n1. WHAT: a restored tree came back red; the bundle had silently dropped tests/fixtures/.\n ROOT CAUSE: one-level directory walk. RULE: rebundle the moment anything goes green, and the\n bundle must round-trip verify. DETECTION: bundle.mjs walks recursively and refuses to write\n without HANDOFF.md; deploy --bundle verifies every part on the val. ENFORCED: bundle.mjs guards.\n\n2. WHAT: an audit \"passed\" while inspecting zero items. ROOT CAUSE: checks with no denominator.\n RULE: a check that inspects zero items is a failure, never a pass. DETECTION: every test returns\n scoped(n, ...) and the harness fails on zero. ENFORCED: tests/_harness.mjs.\n\n3. WHAT: Kim's counter-sales backlog overstated by $10,884. ROOT CAUSE: the count read only first\n attempts; later matches never cleared rows. RULE: counts must read every attempt, not the first.\n DETECTION: tests/money-truth.test.mjs fixture reproduces matched-later traps. ENFORCED: test.\n\n4. WHAT: the consent predicate was inverted and survived 394 assertions. ROOT CAUSE: the only test\n grepped source text instead of calling the function. RULE: never trust a predicate without\n testing BOTH polarities by calling it. DETECTION: I3/I3b/I3c call readChannelConsent with live\n shapes; fault injection goes red. ENFORCED: tests/harness.mjs.\n\n5. WHAT: Kim's page said \"this evening\" forever. ROOT CAUSE: relative time in copy. RULE: no\n hardcoded relative dates in anything she reads. DETECTION: KC-dates lint test bans the phrases.\n ENFORCED: tests/kim-copy.test.mjs.\n\n6. WHAT: a handover claimed a message was sent that never was; a board claimed \"fixed\" for a\n watchdog that held no copy of the logic. RULE: a claim from a previous session is unverified\n until checked live, at a timestamp you can name. DETECTION: [V]/[C]/[U] tags with receipts;\n cold reads. ENFORCED: process, not yet a test.\n\n7. WHAT: the matcher overwrote a field two systems can write. ROOT CAUSE: blind write. RULE: never\n blind-write a field another system owns; sum, scope by stage id, log every write. DETECTION:\n MM-o..MM-t; stage allow-list asserts IDs not names. ENFORCED: tests/money-match.test.mjs.\n\n8. WHAT: \"29 / $19,822\" shipped as complete when the population was 33 / $22,651.99. ROOT CAUSE:\n the query was cut at a date and the cut read as a finding. RULE: a filter boundary is not a\n result; reconcile any subset against its parent total before it leaves the building.\n DETECTION: the audit script asserts subset+remainder equals the parent figure. ENFORCED: ad hoc;\n convert to a standing check when the exception report ships.\n\n9. WHAT: prose over correct arithmetic was wrong twice on the money page. ROOT CAUSE: nothing tests\n sentences. RULE: every number in client prose is re-derived from source before send; run the\n figure audit on every outbound draft. DETECTION: the twelve-assertion draft audit. ENFORCED:\n process; script exists in session history.\n\n10. WHAT: the consent-fix tests were added to tests/harness.mjs, which run-all EXCLUDES as\n scaffolding, so the most important tests of the week ran nowhere; a stale E4 assertion in the\n same file had been failing for days and nobody saw. ROOT CAUSE: added tests without verifying\n the suite count moved. RULE: after adding a test, confirm run-all's suite and assertion counts\n increased; tests live in *.test.mjs files, never in scaffolding. DETECTION: run-all prints both\n counts on every run; compare before and after. ENFORCED: tests/consent-guard.test.mjs is\n discovered; harness.mjs remains scaffolding.\n\n11. WHAT: a deploy shipped while the suite was red (a used-before-declaration the typechecker\n caught), because the deploy command ran in the same breath as the test command and the test\n output was grepped, not read. ROOT CAUSE: pipelining verify and ship. RULE: the suite's RESULT\n line is read and GREEN before deploy is typed, never alongside. DETECTION: deploy.mjs could gate\n on run-all exit code; until then, two commands, two reads. ENFORCED: process.\n\n## Added 12 Aug 2026\n\n12. WHAT: the CRM recorded no payment amounts for five months, from 19 February to August, and\n nothing anywhere noticed. ROOT CAUSE: staff moved from raising invoices in the CRM to ringing\n sales straight into the Square app, so the CRM was cut out of the loop. Nothing failed, so\n nothing errored: bookings kept arriving at full volume and the dollars against them were zero,\n and every count on every page stayed healthy. THE RULE: an absence raises no error, so something\n must be watching the place where a thing used to be. Volume and value are watched TOGETHER,\n because either one alone reads as a normal business. DETECTION: engine/watch.ts, five checks,\n each measuring a source against its own history rather than a threshold somebody typed. Replayed\n against the real payment records: raised on 23 February, urgent by 1 March. ENFORCED:\n tests/watch.test.mjs W20 and W40 are the February shape; sixteen controls in\n tests/negative-controls.mjs break each check in turn, and run-all re-proves the February one on\n every single run.\n\n13. WHAT: the revenue check fired correctly and printed nonsense: \"47 bookings, the same as usual or\n more, and the money came to $50.00. Over the 6 periods before it the usual figures were 2\n bookings and $550.00.\" ROOT CAUSE: the baseline was this account's first weeks in the CRM, two\n records a period. Right arithmetic, no denominator. THE RULE: a baseline needs a minimum\n population before it can carry an accusation, exactly as a ratio does; below it, say \"cannot\n judge\" out loud rather than either accusing or passing. A sentence that reads as a glitch spends\n the credibility the real alarm will need. DETECTION: found by REPLAYING the check against the\n real history as it stood on a past date, which is a thing worth doing to anything that claims it\n would have caught something. ENFORCED: tests/watch.test.mjs W24b, plus its own control.\n\n14. WHAT: the Square backlog was reported as 33 payments / $22,651.99 when the true figure is 4 /\n $1,969.99. 29 payments worth $20,682.00 had reached a named customer and were still being\n counted as never having reached one. This is the THIRD wrong version of this same number in\n writing (42 / $33,535.99, then 29 / $19,822, then 33 / $22,651.99). ROOT CAUSE: not the rule,\n the KEY. Both squareBacklog() and unmatchedPaymentRows() group a payment's rows by\n `/payment\\s+(\\S+)/` on the note. The bridge writes the failing attempt as \"payment \" and\n the attempt that RESOLVED it as \"backfilled from square payment ; client opp untouched\".\n `\\S+` swallows the semicolon, so the resolving row lands under \";\" and the failing row\n under \"\". The MATCHED-LATER GUARD is correct and never fires, because it is guarding a\n group the matched row is not in. A second, smaller hole in the same key: PAY-DUP rows carry the\n payment id in an `id` FIELD with no note at all, so a note regex cannot see them; 5 payments\n were missing from the population entirely. THE RULE: a guard is only as good as the key that\n groups the rows it guards. When a count is wrong, check the grouping before the logic, and\n assert that two rows known to describe one thing actually land on one key. Corollary: a payment\n id is data, and it gets a parser with a test, not an inline regex written twice.\n DETECTION: found by reconciling the unmatched SUBSET against a population total that had never\n been computed before. There was no denominator, so three wrong numbers in a row all looked\n plausible. ENFORCED: scripts/exception-report-lib.mjs squarePaymentIdsInRow() +\n paymentUniverse(); tests/exception-report.test.mjs X14..X19, where X19 is a negative control\n that rebuilds the old note-only key and proves it splits the payment and loses the match.\n CLOSED 12 Aug 2026, verified live at 18:58 UTC against 790 journal rows: engine/facts.ts now\n carries paymentIds() with the same punctuation strip and the same id-field read, and\n squareBacklog() returns 4 / $1,969.99. The correction was not made silently; it went to the\n client as /mnt/user-data/outputs/counter-sales-CORRECTION.md, leading with the corrected\n figure and showing the arithmetic from 42 / $33,535.99 down to 4 / $1,969.99.\n\n15. WHAT: a contact walk stopped at 900 of 5,708 and reported 900 as the whole CRM. ROOT CAUSE: one\n page came back with an empty array mid walk and the loop treated \"no rows\" as \"no more rows\".\n Re-issuing the identical request with the identical cursor returned a full page. THE RULE: an\n empty page is retried, never believed; the stop condition is the stated total, not the first\n gap. Second half of the same rule, learned on the next run: the total MOVES, because the CRM is\n live and contacts are created while the read is running, so the target is the total as it stood\n at the FIRST page. Short of that is a hard failure; past it is growth during the read and is\n worth a note, not a crash. ENFORCED: scripts/client-files-rebuild.mjs fetchAllContacts() and\n fetchAllOpportunities().\n\n16. WHAT: the weekly exception report shipped a column headed \"Recoverable\" that told the client\n Caroline Riner could not be traced, when Square holds her full name and her phone number, and\n that a sale with nothing attached anywhere could be. Two of four rows wrong, in the column she\n uses to decide what to chase. ROOT CAUSE: the column was read off hadEmail/hadPhone/\n hadCustomerId. Those describe the WEBHOOK PAYLOAD the bridge received, not Square's customer\n record, and the report already had Square's own answer in hand from its ?lookup= call and did\n not use it. engine/facts.ts had ALREADY been fixed for exactly this on the sentence it\n generates; the CSV and the markdown table beside that sentence were missed, because the fix\n was made where the bug was noticed rather than everywhere the field is read. THE RULE: when a\n field is found to be answering a different question from the one asked of it, grep for every\n reader of that field in the same change, not just the one that surfaced it. Corollary: if a\n document already fetched the authoritative source, no column in it may be derived from a proxy.\n DETECTION: found by checking all four rows against Square through ?lookup= instead of trusting\n the flags, which is the same move that found the payment id bug. ENFORCED: exception-report.mjs\n derives the client-facing column from the Square lookup and prints how many rows the old flag\n got wrong; the flag survives in the CSV under the name journal_flag_called_it_recoverable so\n its provenance is on its face. NOT YET A TEST.\n\n17. WHAT: the weekly exception report quoted its subset against nothing. It said \"4 unmatched\n payments totaling $1,969.99\" with no population anywhere in the document, which is the exact\n condition LESSONS #8 and #14 both name as the reason three wrong versions of that number in a\n row all looked plausible. ROOT CAUSE: paymentUniverse() was written to supply that denominator\n and the report never called it. A rule that exists in the library but is not wired into the\n artifact protects nothing. Second, smaller cause found while wiring it: the population cannot\n be summed from the journal at all, because PAY-DUP rows carry no amount field and five payments\n worth $1,410.00 are reachable only through those rows. A journal-only parent total understates\n the population and makes the subset look larger than it is. THE RULE: the parent total goes in\n the artifact the client reads, not just in the console, and it is summed from the system that\n owns the amount rather than from the log that mentions it. DETECTION: the report now reconciles\n linked plus unlinked against the population in rows and in cents and refuses to write if they\n disagree. ENFORCED: scripts/exception-report.mjs STEP 6a. NOT YET A TEST.\n\n18. WHAT: a client page was about to go out that threw `Identifier 'top' has already been declared`\n and rendered a title and nothing else. Every figure on it was correct and independently\n verified. ROOT CAUSE: `const top` at module scope collides with `window.top`, and nothing in\n this project had ever OPENED a generated HTML page before sending it. The copy lint, the figure\n audit and the reconciliation checks all passed on a page that displayed nothing. THE RULE: a\n generated page is not verified until it has been rendered in a real browser and the screenshot\n LOOKED AT. Console errors, horizontal overflow and sheared numbers are part of correctness, not\n polish. DETECTION: headless Chromium render at 1100px and 360px, asserting zero page errors and\n `scrollWidth === clientWidth`, before any HTML reaches a client. ENFORCED: process today; make\n it a test the moment a second page is generated.\n\n19. WHAT: the message quoted $204,122.00 as the headline and its own attachment led with\n $419,217.99 in the largest type on the page. Both were correct, over different windows. ROOT\n CAUSE: message and attachment were written by different passes and neither reconciled against\n the other; each was checked internally and the PAIR was checked nowhere. THE RULE: a deliverable\n is the message plus every attachment, and the contradiction sweep runs across the set, not\n within each file. To a client who has been given three wrong numbers, \"different window\" is\n indistinguishable from the previous three excuses. DETECTION: build the table of every figure\n appearing in more than one file and diff it, including framing differences (gross versus net,\n payments versus orders) and not just arithmetic. ENFORCED: process.\n\n20. WHAT: a trust document answering \"who else has been in my account\" listed Facebook and the\n email inbox as \"not connected, nothing\", while the same send quoted her Facebook thread verbatim\n and named the hour her CRM last emailed a customer. ROOT CAUSE: the table described the\n integrations I had authenticated to, not the data I could actually read; her conversations live\n INSIDE the CRM, so \"read everything in the CRM\" already included them. THE RULE: an access\n disclosure enumerates what can be READ, not what has been plugged in. Anything the same send\n demonstrates knowledge of must appear in it. DETECTION: cross-read the disclosure against every\n other file in the send and ask, for each fact, which row of the table permits knowing it.\n\n21. WHAT: the bundle upload failed on one part with \"Null byte detected\" after a new script used a\n literal NUL as a map key separator inside a template string. Valid JavaScript, unshippable.\n ROOT CAUSE: the recovery bundle is the only route back after a container is reclaimed, and\n nothing checked that every source file was transport safe before it became load bearing.\n THE RULE: a file that cannot round trip through the bundle is a broken file, whatever the\n language thinks. Composite map keys use a printable separator. DETECTION: bundle.mjs should\n refuse to write a part containing a control character, naming the file and the offset;\n until then, deploy --bundle failing is the signal and it must be chased, not retried.\n\n## Added 14 Aug 2026\n\n22. WHAT: engine/watch.ts, the early warning monitor, roughly 990 lines written and tested green on\n 12 August, existed in exactly one place and that place was a container. The container was\n reclaimed and the file was gone from everywhere. It had to be rebuilt from tests/watch.test.mjs.\n ROOT CAUSE: scripts/bundle.mjs excluded engine/ with the comment \"the val holds it, verified\n file by file by scripts/deploy.mjs\". That was true of 27 of the 28 engine files. watch.ts is a\n module the val does not run (scripts/watch-run.mjs imports it locally), so it was never\n deployed, so deploy.mjs --check never had an opinion about it, so nothing anywhere compared the\n two lists. The assumption was stated in a comment and checked by nothing.\n THE RULE: a comment claiming a file has a second home is not a second home. Every source file\n gets one unconditionally, and the completeness of the backup is checked against the TREE, which\n is present and needs no credential, rather than against a remote system that needs a network, a\n token, and can lose the file the day after the check passed.\n DETECTION: scripts/bundle.mjs now carries engine/ and sweeps the whole repo for source files,\n refusing to write while any of them is outside the bundle. Proved able to fail two ways: remove\n engine/ from INCLUDE and it names 26 files; add an unlisted directory and it names the one file\n in it. Exit 1, nothing written.\n SECOND HOLE FOUND WHILE FIXING THE FIRST: scripts/restore.mjs read the bundle with\n `for (let i = 1; i <= 20; i++)`. The val held 23 parts, so the documented recovery path had\n already been silently restoring 20 of them and printing two cheerful counts underneath. The\n part list is asked for now, and a gap in the numbering is a hard failure.\n ENFORCED: scripts/bundle.mjs source sweep; scripts/restore.mjs part discovery plus a\n contiguity check, with engine/watch.ts named in MUST_EXIST so a bundle older than this fix says\n so at restore time rather than at import time an hour later.\n\n23. WHAT: the val holds engine/_deno-shim.d.ts, which is not source. scripts/typecheck.mjs writes\n that shim, runs tsc, and deletes it in a finally block; a deploy that ran while it existed on\n disk pushed it, and it has stayed. Harmless today: typecheck skips .d.ts, nothing imports it,\n and the next typecheck run deletes it again after a restore. THE RULE: a deploy that walks a\n directory will ship whatever is in that directory at that second, including a file some other\n tool is holding open. NOT YET FIXED, and deliberately left alone rather than deleted off the\n val in passing.\n\n\n=====FILE handover/RESUME.md =====\n# RESUME — read this first\n\nLast updated: **7 August 2026, 23:40 UTC**. Written as the session ran, not at the end.\n\n## Where this stopped\n\nRound 14 of the holiday-deposit adversarial review was finished, tested, deployed and recorded.\nRound 15 had one reviewer come back before **the container reverted at ~15:10** to a snapshot that\npredates the deposit tracker. The recovery is complete and verified; roughly half the session's\nremaining budget went on it. Round 15's finding is diagnosed, one part fixed, the rest open.\n\n## URGENT, FOUND IN KIM'S INBOX 7 Aug 23:30\n\n**The Kristian acceptance walkthrough is Sunday 9 August, 3pm EST / 8pm BST.** Kristian confirmed\nhe expects Amir on it. The invite went to iziguickbooks@gmail.com, Google flagged it as an unknown\nsender, and it is in NO calendar Amir holds. Amir must accept it himself.\n\nAlso unread in her inbox: Kristian's answers to the five pre call questions, an email to Kristian\nand Amir about issues found with Chloe, and a Manychat payment that has failed twice.\n\nFull register: `handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md`. Plan for running without Amir: `handover/AUTOPILOT.md`.\nReady to send: `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md`.\n\n## SENT TO KIM, 7 Aug 11:46 PM and 12:03 AM\n\nBoth went out on Upwork, watched landing in the thread.\n\n1. The full message. Owns the silence and the late report, corrects the deposit scope in its first\n section (it lists, it does not block), answers the 175 question, gives dates for everything not\n done. Text at `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt`.\n2. `TheDogsSpot-Friday-Report-7-Aug-2026.pdf`, five pages, attached with the line \"Here is the full\n report, five pages.\"\n\nNothing else is owed to her tonight. The dates she now holds us to are in the message and repeated\nat the bottom of this file.\n\n### Small wording note for next time\nThe message says \"the full one page version comes over right behind this\" and the PDF is five pages.\nIt is one page per platform plus an appendix, so it is not wrong, but say \"the full report\" next\ntime rather than \"one page\".\n\n## SUPERSEDED: the message to Kim is written and NOT sent\n\n`handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt`. Amir sends it. It opens by owning two days of silence, then\ncorrects the deposit scope (it lists, it does not block) before anything else. Confirmed by a fresh\nreload of the thread that no message went to her today, so that correction is still owed.\n\nThe three reports are at `reports/Friday-Report-7-Aug-2026.html`, one page, phone readable, every\nfigure read live from the platform today and every derived figure computed in code.\n\n## NEW FROM KIM — read `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md` before touching the deposit feature\n\nHer thread was read at 17:05 UTC. Roughly twenty messages since 6 Aug 2:57 PM, none answered. Her\nlast one, 7 Aug 3:58 PM: *\"I haven't heard from you so thinking communication may have moved to the\ncard page.\"* She is waiting.\n\n**The one that changes the work:** on 6 Aug she confirmed she wants the deposit feature to *block a\nbooking until the deposit is paid*. What is built and live is the other option she was offered —\nread Square, produce a shortlist. It is the honest half and it works, but she believes something\nstronger exists. **Nothing more should be said to her about deposits until that is stated plainly.**\n\nTwo of her questions are already answered by what shipped: the deposit is $50 **per dog** (watched\nlive, Musselwhite's row reads $150.00 for 3 dogs), and Thanksgiving is the **fourth** Thursday, not\nthe third as she restated.\n\n## First three things to do\n\n0. **Answer Kim** — or rather, put the reply in front of Amir. Register at\n `handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md`, deposit scope mismatch first.\n1. **Round 15, the accusation allow-list.** 69 of 81 candidate accusing sentences reach Kim's\n rendered card. One mechanism (non-breaking space) is fixed. Do NOT widen the regex a fourth\n time — make the note cell an allow-list by construction. Full argument at the end of\n `handover/DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`.\n2. **Finish round 15**, then run round 16. Two consecutive CLEAN rounds are still the goal;\n fifteen have run and every one has found something.\n3. **Run the full 203-control suite.** It has not completed end to end since the rebuild. About\n 25 minutes: `node tests/negative-controls.mjs`. Twenty-nine of the controls are new or\n retargeted and were each verified individually, but not in one pass.\n\n## State, verified\n\n| | |\n|---|---|\n| suites | 15, **332 tests**, 0 failed |\n| floors | test count, check count AND assertion count, per suite; every floor's suite proved to have run |\n| controls | **203**, seven pinned by fingerprint in `run-all`, one retired on the record |\n| typecheck | clean, 21 engine files |\n| engine on the val | deployed and verified, v388 — `dashboard.ts`, `deposits.ts`, `holiday-deposits.ts`, `worklog.ts` |\n| bundle on the val | parts 1-11, rebuilt and pushed 7 Aug ~16:30 |\n| `restore.mjs --check` | byte-for-byte agreement on every file |\n| main.ts | 79,157 / 80,000 characters — 525 to spare |\n\n## Live URLs\n\n- dashboard `https://amir5--fb119304902811f182781607ee4eb77e.web.val.run?k=`\n- deposits `https://amir5--2e97d0d291ad11f1a57d1607ee4eb77e.web.val.run?k=`\n — read it WITHOUT `?run=1`. `run=1` resets the hourly gate and destroys the evidence of whether\n the schedule fired on its own.\n- admin key: `DELIVERY/ENDPOINTS.md`. Never echo it, never put it in anything Kim reads.\n\n## The refresh\n\nObserved firing autonomously **seven times**, all labelled `deposits-cron`: 20:49, 21:49, 22:52,\n23:54, 00:54, 02:55:55 and **16:08:21Z**. That last one was read from the endpoint WITHOUT `run=1`,\nthirteen hours after the only manual run of the day, so it is the schedule and not a person. State\nat that read: 2/2 boarding calendars, 2/2 pick-up calendars, 0 read failures, one row, next refresh\ndue 17:08:21Z.\n\n## If the container reverts again\n\n**It reverted twice on 7 August — at ~15:10 and again at ~17:15.** The first cost roughly half a\nsession because the bundle was twelve hours stale. The second cost three minutes, because the tree\nhad been rebundled the moment it went green. That is the entire argument for the rule below.\n\n\n```\nnode scripts/restore.mjs # needs $VALTOWN_TOKEN\nnode tests/run-all.mjs\n```\n\n`restore.mjs` needs a val.town token. It reads `$VALTOWN_TOKEN`, then `scripts/deploy.mjs`. **If\nboth are gone** — which is what happened on 7 August, because the snapshot predated `scripts/` —\nthe token is in the session transcript under `/root/.claude/projects/`; extract it without printing\nit. Do not paste it into any file Kim or a subagent can read.\n\n**The trap that cost twelve hours:** the engine restores from the val at whatever state was last\nDEPLOYED, and everything else restores from the bundle at whatever state was last BUNDLED. If those\nare different points in time you get a mismatched repo, and it presents as tests failing for\nreasons that look like new bugs. `restore.mjs` now names eleven files whose absence proves the\nbundle is older than the work. **So: rebundle the moment the tree is green.** Not at the end of the\nsession. The bundle is the only copy of everything that is not the engine.\n\n## Open, not blocked\n\n- **Round 15's thirteen remaining accusation mechanisms.** Listed by group in `DEPOSIT-SPEC.md`.\n- **The `/calendars/events` truncation guard.** `allNotes` treats a list at the 100 cap as\n unreadable because that endpoint cannot be paged. The two calendar reads have no equivalent\n check, and whether that endpoint caps — and at what — has not been observed. Guessing a threshold\n would be inventing one. In the ledger as a question.\n- **The transcript TTL test**, due ~13 Aug: re-query the earliest surviving transcript.\n- **Two schedules racing.** Cannot be made atomic — val.town's blob store has no compare-and-set.\n The window is one blob write wide, the cost is a duplicate read-only pass, and D43 pins the\n guarantee that actually holds rather than the one that does not.\n\n## Questions for Kim — ledger only, do not contact her\n\n1. The boarding cancellation policy. Nothing on her website.\n2. Do the Thanksgiving window edges (Monday before to Sunday after) match what she wants?\n3. Does she offer daycare, at what price? Her own biography says the facility does; there is no\n page, no hours and no price anywhere. Her instruction was to remove the word from customer copy,\n which is why it came off the dashboard footer.\n4. The funnel exit rule for an abandoned Free Training Day booking. Not to be applied unilaterally.\n\n## Amir's one action, non-blocking\n\nGHL → Private Integrations → tick the tags-view scope → Save → Regenerate → paste the new token\ninto both val env tabs. Until then the tag report shows a setup state rather than data.\n\n\n\n=====FILE handover/REGISTER-AUG7.md =====\n# REGISTER — Kim's thread, 6–7 August\n\nRead from Upwork on 7 August at 17:05 UTC. Covers everything after the last Amir message\n(6 Aug, 2:57 PM). Kim wrote roughly twenty messages in that window and has had no reply.\n\n**Her last message, 7 Aug 3:58 PM:** *\"Did you see the responses to the cards on the links that you\nsent over on Wednesday? I haven't heard from you so thinking communication may have moved to the\ncard page.\"* She is waiting. That is the most time-sensitive item here and it is not a build task.\n\n---\n\n## 1. THE DEPOSIT SCOPE DOES NOT MATCH WHAT WAS BUILT — decide before anything else\n\n**Kim, 6 Aug 5:03 PM:**\n> \"And just so I'm not misunderstanding you're gonna go ahead and set it up to automatically charge\n> the nonrefundable deposit for holiday boarding bookings so that they cannot have a confirmed\n> booking until the deposit is paid is that correct? And can we make sure that there is clear\n> communication that this deposit is nonrefundable for the holidays?\"\n\nOn 5 August she was offered two sizes of job: the small one (read Square, produce a list of who\nstill owes) and the big one (take the deposit as part of the booking, so nobody can complete one\nwithout paying). **She has now chosen the big one, and believes it is what is being built.**\n\n**What exists is the small one.** The holiday deposit tracker reads her calendars and her Square\npayment notes and produces a shortlist to check. It writes nothing, blocks nothing, and cannot\nprevent a booking. It is finished, tested and live.\n\nThat is not a defect — it is the honest half, and it was right to build first because it required\nwatching the money move before recommending anything. But she must not be left believing a booking\nis being blocked when it is not. **Nothing further should be sent to her about deposits until this\nis said plainly.**\n\nWorth putting in front of her at the same time:\n- The blocking version means moving holiday bookings off her website form and into the CRM, which\n changes where her customers book. That is a bigger change to her business than to the software.\n- On 5 Aug she said she was told it needs Stripe because the CRM is not native with Square, and\n that she would rather not. Blocking a booking on payment is exactly where that constraint bites.\n The tracker sidesteps it; an enforcing version does not.\n\n**Her second half — \"clear communication that this deposit is nonrefundable\" — is buildable now**\nand is not blocked on the above.\n\n## 2. Already answered by what shipped\n\n- **\"the $50 deposit is actually 50 per dog so I just wanted to mention that how will that track?\"**\n (6 Aug 9:02 PM). Already built, and watched live at 03:13:02Z on 7 Aug: Jeffrey Musselwhite's row\n reads *\"The deposit on this stay is $150.00 (3 dogs at $50)\"*. It settles on one payment for the\n full amount, or one $50 per dog, and on nothing else.\n- **Thanksgiving.** She wrote \"it is the third Thursday of every November\". It is the **fourth**.\n She was corrected on 6 Aug (\"the fourth Thursday, the 26th this year\") and the code works it out\n fresh each year rather than storing a date. She restated the wrong version *after* being told, so\n it is worth confirming the correction landed.\n- **The old puppy workflow** — *\"has never been used so it can be turned off at any time\"*\n (6 Aug 5:03 PM). That removes one leg of the three-part go-live.\n\n## 3. New asks, not started\n\n| | Ask | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| a | **Free Training Day pick-up calendar** | 30 minutes, first booking 3:30pm, last start 4:30pm, all done by 5pm, all the usual appointment workflows |\n| b | **Secondary Pup Talk calendar** | A copy of the existing one under a different name, so the team can see at a glance who is making the call. For Candace to book a talk directly with a trainer |\n| c | **Pups Club self-unsubscribe** | Subscribers need a way to unsubscribe themselves |\n| d | **Tag cleanup** | Remove tags that came with the system and are never used. Plus *\"is there a way to set up tracking when a tag is applied?\"* — her CRM does not record tag timestamps, only that a record changed, so this needs a real answer rather than a yes |\n| e | **Free Training Day workflow rebuild** | Milton edited it on 5 Aug. She confirms **the abandoned-booking workflow is hers** and is open to redoing it: *\"take a look at what it already does and we could probably clean it up\"*. This resolves the pending exit-rule question — but it is a live workflow of hers and should be changed with her watching |\n| f | **Puppy nurture additions** | A note on water intoxication in dogs for the July/August messages, and kids going back to school in August |\n| g | **Website bootcamp deposit** | She says it should read **$500**, and *\"the payment was actually set up to go onto PayPal and not through Square\"*. The handover pack records $250. **Her word overrides the pack** — confirm which figure is current before anything is published |\n| h | **Retargeting ad** | She put videos in a Drive folder; a retargeting ad was to be discussed |\n| i | **Cost against revenue** | *\"I absolutely wanna know what all this costs against what it brings in go ahead and do what needs to be done\"* — explicit approval to build the reporting |\n\n## 4. Copy changes she asked for — her words about her own voice\n\n- **Touch 2, \"I got your message\"** — drop it. *\"What message am I replying to exactly?\"* Keep the\n welcome, lose the reply framing.\n- **\"it's a conversation, not a pitch\"** — keep the first half, cut the second. *\"I don't like that\n it keeps saying that it's not a pitch. Can we just leave off the part about the pitch and just\n tell them what it is rather than what it isn't.\"*\n- **\"I won't chase you\"** and the no-show/no-sale negatives — same rule. *\"I'd rather remove\n language about what I won't do and leave the more positive language in there that says they can\n call, they can reach out anytime.\"*\n- **\"how you're getting on\"** → **\"how it's going\"**. British.\n- **Kim's name vs the business name.** A positioning decision, not a find-and-replace: *\"is there a\n way to use the business name The Dogs Spot instead of my personal name or mix the two... if\n they've only ever been hearing from Kim they'll never get me on the phone but they'll get my\n team.\"* There is a real trade-off — a named human outperforms a business name on reply rate,\n which is why it reads that way now. She should hear the trade-off before it changes.\n\n## 5. Open questions of hers with no answer yet\n\n- **Candace's app freezing when loading messages.** The one measurable fact so far: the account\n holds ~5,500 conversations and loading them serially looks exactly like a freeze. Two screenshots\n sent showing where the list stops.\n- **\"of the 175 new inquiries is that total new chats or is that based off each answer Ava provides\n thus inflating the numbers\"** — a direct question about whether a headline number on her own page\n is inflated. Needs a real answer, not a reassurance.\n- **\"Chloe was edited around 10:30 last night wasn't me is there anyway that you can see who did\n it?\"**\n- **\"The counter sales at unmatched how do I track where that came from and why is this\n happening?\"**\n- **The access key.** *\"it shows me times but it doesn't show me dates of messages so I think I\n deleted the access key.\"* Her page may be broken for her right now — worth checking first.\n- **thedogsspotga.com** is Wix + Google. *\"I'm happy to add the 4 lines but would need instructions\n on how and where to do it.\"* She is willing; she needs step-by-step.\n- **A contact with a Meet and Greet booked has no active workflow for it.** She noticed and asked.\n\n## 6. Ledger — questions for Kim, still unanswered\n\n1. The boarding cancellation policy. Nothing on her website.\n2. Do the Thanksgiving window edges (Monday before to Sunday after) match what she wants?\n3. Does she offer daycare, and at what price? Her own biography says the facility does; there is no\n page, no hours, no price. Her instruction was to remove the word from customer copy, which is\n why it also came off the dashboard footer on 7 Aug.\n4. **New:** is the bootcamp deposit $500 or $250, and does it go to PayPal or Square?\n5. **New:** does she want the deposit tracker as built, or the enforcing version she described?\n\n## What was not done\n\nNothing was sent to Kim, no workflow of hers was edited, no calendar was created. Everything above\nis recorded for Amir to act on. The deposit scope mismatch (§1) is the one that should not wait.\n\n---\n\n## UPDATE, 7 August 17:5x UTC, after re-reading the thread\n\n**No message was sent to Kim today.** The Upwork thread was reloaded fresh and it ends at her\n3:58 PM message. The brief for this session described a message sent this morning covering the\ndeposit correction, an apology for the silence, three promised reports and the bootcamp question.\nThat message does not exist in the thread. So none of it has reached her, and the deposit\ncorrection in particular is still owed rather than done.\n\nEverything in section 1 above therefore still stands, unchanged: she believes the deposit feature\nblocks a booking. The draft at `handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt` makes that correction in its\nfirst section, which is where it belongs.\n\n### Answered this session, with verified figures\n\n- **\"of the 175 new inquiries is that total new chats or is that based off each answer Ava\n provides\"** — 175 is new CONTACT RECORDS. Not chats, not inflated by Ava, whose messages are\n outbound and cannot create a contact. Verified two independent ways. 246 distinct people wrote in\n that week, 175 new and 71 returning, so the headline undercounts activity rather than inflating it.\n- **\"I absolutely wanna know what all this costs against what it brings in\"** — cost side answered\n in full ($718.98 for the week). Return side cannot be answered: 0 of 5,768 opportunities are\n marked won, all time. That finding is the most valuable thing produced this session.\n- **The attribution gap** — Facebook claims 127 conversations over the six days both systems cover;\n the CRM took 149 new contacts in the same window; 120 of those have no source at all and none is\n attributed to Facebook.\n\n\n\n=====FILE handover/SWEEP-7-AUG.md =====\n# REGISTER — sweep of 7 August, both inboxes plus Upwork and calendar\n\nSwept 7 Aug 23:16 to 23:35 UTC. Windows: last 3 days on both mailboxes.\n\n## What was actually read, and what was not\n\n- **aizhigitovamir@gmail.com** — 201 threads in the window, listed in full, then filtered by\n targeted search on 12 Kim related terms. **Zero direct emails from Kim.** Every Kim item in this\n mailbox is an Upwork notification for a message already read and answered in the thread.\n- **iziguickbooks@gmail.com** (Kim's business account) — inbox listed, 340 conversations, 253\n unread overall, 38 in the last 3 days. The top of the list was read and the critical thread\n opened in full.\n- **Upwork** — both rooms read end to end in an earlier pass. Nothing new since Kim's 3:58 PM\n message, which has been answered.\n- **Calendar** — all events 5 to 16 Aug pulled. Every one is Amir's personal routine. **No client\n meeting of any kind is booked.**\n\n**Not finished, and it matters:** in Kim's mailbox I read the top of the list and one thread in\nfull. Roughly 30 of the 38 recent conversations were seen as sender and subject only, and the 253\nolder unread were not touched. Gmail's list would not yield to text extraction so each thread costs\na click. Item 1 below was found in the first screen, which is a good argument for finishing the\nrest rather than assuming the rest is noise.\n\n---\n\n# TIME SENSITIVE\n\n## 1. THE KRISTIAN WALKTHROUGH IS SUNDAY, AND IT IS NOT IN AMIR'S CALENDAR\n\n**Kristian Moore, 7 Aug 21:57, to Kim and Amir:**\n> \"Hi Kim, I have sent a calendar invite for Sunday at 3:00 p.m. EST. Additionally, I confirm that\n> I have no disagreement regarding the stated goals. I look forward to walking through the system\n> with you and Amir.\"\n\n- **Sunday 9 August, 3:00 pm EST, which is 8:00 pm BST.** Under two days away.\n- The calendar invite went to **iziguickbooks@gmail.com**, Kim's address, from an address Google\n flagged as \"unknown sender\". It is sitting unaccepted in her inbox.\n- **It is in no calendar Amir holds.** Confirmed by pulling every event from 5 to 16 August.\n- This is the acceptance walkthrough. Kim asked Amir to be on it on 3 August. Kristian has now\n confirmed he expects Amir there.\n\n**If nobody touches this:** Amir misses the call, or joins cold. Kim walks into an acceptance\nreview, alone, on software she has been advised not to accept yet, with a signature page at the end\nof it and a 30 day warranty clock attached. That is the single most expensive thing in this\nregister.\n\n**Status: BLOCKED on Amir.** Accepting a calendar invite is his identity and his diary. The prep is\nDONE and waiting: `handover/Before-the-walkthrough-with-Kristian.pdf`, four pages, written before\nthis call was scheduled and still current.\n\n## 2. KRISTIAN HAS ANSWERED THE PRE CALL QUESTIONS\n\nKim, 7 Aug 18:49, replying to him: *\"Thank you. This answers a number of the questions I had,\nparticularly around what was completed in GHL and how the application is intended to inter...\"*\n\nThose are the five questions drafted for her on 4 August: deployment status, who owns the boarding\nbooking link, what changed in GHL during July, the calendar list, and what the app writes back.\n\n**Status: BLOCKED, needs reading before Sunday.** The full text is in that thread and was not\nextracted in this pass. It is the difference between a short call and an hour of discovery.\n\n## 3. MANYCHAT PAYMENT HAS FAILED, AGAIN\n\n**Manychat, Inc., 7 Aug 17:30:** *\"$39.00 payment to Manychat, Inc. was unsuccessful again\"*\nAlso 17:05: VAT now applied to the subscription in the United Kingdom.\n\nThe word \"again\" is the problem. Manychat sits on the Facebook side of her funnel, and Facebook is\nwhere 538 of last week's 748 inbound messages came from. If it suspends, the thing that stops is\nlead capture from her largest channel, and it will not announce itself.\n\n**Status: BLOCKED.** Fixing a failed card is money and identity. Neither is ours to touch.\n**What unblocks it:** Kim updates the card on the Manychat billing page. Draft below.\n\n## 4. THE CHLOE ISSUES EMAIL, SENT TO KRISTIAN AND AMIR TOGETHER\n\n**otchx4@gmail.com, 7 Aug 18:05:** *\"Hi Kristian and Amir, I'm sending this to both of you because\nwe identified several issues with Chloe on actual...\"*\n\nChloe is Kristian's bot. Kim said on 3 August she has not wanted to raise issues with him because\nhe can be mercurial. Something has now been raised with both of them, two days before the\nacceptance call.\n\n**Status: BLOCKED, needs reading before Sunday.** Not read in full in this pass.\n\n## 5. KIM ASKED FOR THE REPORT BY EMAIL AS WELL AS UPWORK\n\n**Kim Hicks, 7 Aug 21:34, \"Fridays report\":** *\"Hi Amir, I'm looking forward to seeing the report\nfor today when you get a chance. Thanks Kim Hicks\"*\n\n**Status: DONE.** The message went at 23:46 and the five page PDF at 00:03, both on Upwork, both\nwatched landing. She asked on email and was answered on Upwork, so if she is watching email she has\nnot seen it yet. Worth a one line email pointing at it. Draft below.\n\n---\n\n# EVERYTHING ELSE, FROM THE EARLIER REGISTER, UNCHANGED\n\nDates now promised to her in writing: Monday the July ROAS tracking check and her page showing\ntimes but no dates. Tuesday both calendars. Wednesday tag cleanup and the free training day\nworkflow rebuild. Thursday Pups Club self unsubscribe. Full detail in `REGISTER-AUG7.md`.\n\n---\n\n# NOT KIM — handoff only, untouched, do not act on from this session\n\n| From | What |\n|---|---|\n| Ashley Ryan, via Asana | Task assigned to Amir, \"Ariel Tracking\", **due Monday 10 August** |\n| Ashley Ryan, via Asana | Comment asking for Amir's Facebook details to add him to an ad account |\n| Ashley Ryan, via Asana | Comment asking how to add Amir to her personal FB business manager to fix a domain |\n| Ashley Ryan, via Asana | Comment on \"set up check out for 333\", mentions $1998 |\n| Ariel Daunay | Google Tag Manager access invitation |\n| ash@cocreators.club | Google Tag Manager access invitation |\n| Ariel Daunay | Google Analytics access granted |\n| ash@cocreators.club | Google Analytics access granted |\n| Microsoft Clarity | Two project invitations, Ariel Daunay and CoCreators |\n| Revolut | W-8BEN form has expired |\n| Microsoft Azure | Free credit expired 7 August, resources deleted |\n| Mint People | Bar shift offered for Saturday 8 August, Swindon |\n| Trading 212 | Terms updating |\n| Upwork | Roughly 20 job alerts |\n| Assorted | Glassdoor, Indeed, Leisurejobs, Skool, eBay, AliExpress, Just Eat, marketing |\n\nThe Ariel Daunay and CoCreators work is a different client on a different stack. Acting on it from\na session holding Kim's credentials is how one client's data ends up in another's account.\n\n\n\n=====FILE handover/AUTOPILOT.md =====\n# AUTOPILOT — running Kim's account while Amir is away\n\nWritten to be executed. Ranked by what protects the relationship first, revenue second, tidiness\nlast. Assume no replies, no approvals, no clicks from Amir.\n\n## THE HARD STOPS. These are never done without him, however obvious they look.\n\n1. Anything that reaches one of Kim's customers. No message, no workflow switched live, no tag that\n triggers one. Practice mode holds.\n2. Anything that costs money or fixes a payment. The Manychat card included.\n3. Anything irreversible. Deleting tags, contacts, workflows, calendars.\n4. Anything needing his identity. Accepting the Kristian invite, joining the call, replying to Kim,\n accepting access invitations.\n5. Editing a live workflow of hers. She has said she is open to the free training day rebuild, and\n she has still not watched it happen.\n\nEverything below respects those five without exception.\n\n## FIRST FIVE ACTIONS, IN ORDER\n\n1. **Read the Kristian thread in full and write the Sunday brief.** 40 minutes. Done means: his\n answers to all five pre call questions extracted verbatim, each marked answered, partly answered\n or dodged, and a one page sheet Amir can hold during the call. The existing four page note is\n still valid; this sits on top of it.\n2. **Read the Chloe issues email and place it.** 20 minutes. Done means: the issues are listed, each\n one marked as Kristian's, ours, or GoHighLevel's, and any that are ours are fixed or dated\n before Sunday.\n3. **Check the July ROAS tracking is still filling in.** 60 minutes. Promised to Kim for Monday.\n Done means: a named date when a paying customer was last matched to an ad, watched live, or a\n plain statement that it stopped and when. Until this exists no return figure goes to her.\n4. **Reproduce her page showing times but no dates.** 30 minutes. Promised for Monday. Done means:\n loading her exact link, seeing what she sees, and either the fix deployed and reloaded, or a\n written statement of what is actually wrong.\n5. **Finish the sweep of her inbox.** 45 minutes. The 30 conversations seen as subject only, then\n the 253 older unread. Done means every one opened and placed in the register. Item 1 of the\n register was found in the first screen, which is the argument for finishing.\n\nThen, in order: both calendars, tag cleanup, the free training day rebuild, Pups Club unsubscribe.\nEach is a promise with a date on it in her inbox.\n\n## IF SHE MESSAGES WHILE HE IS AWAY\n\nFour drafts sit ready in `handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md`, written so Amir can send one from his\nphone in thirty seconds. They cover: chasing the report, asking to go live, asking about the\ndeposit blocking version, and asking why something is late. None of them is sent by anyone but him.\n\nIf she raises something none of them covers, the rule is a holding reply within the hour that says\nwhat is being done and when, never silence. Silence is the thing that caused this week.\n\n## IF SOMETHING BREAKS\n\n| What | How it is detected | Done automatically | Safe without Amir | Must wait |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Deposit refresh stops | The card shows its own age, and says so past 36 hours | Nothing, by design. It degrades to a visibly older list rather than a wrong one | Re-run the collection by hand, read only | Nothing |\n| CRM token expires | Every collection returns could not check, and the card says so | Refuses to overwrite good data with unreadable data | Diagnose and report | Regenerating the token. His identity |\n| A calendar stops answering | calendarsRead drops below calendarsAsked | Refuses to store a shorter list over a longer one, since 7 Aug | Diagnose | Nothing |\n| Manychat suspends | No automatic detection today. This is a gap | Nothing | Watch her Facebook inbound volume against last week's 538 and flag a drop | Paying the bill |\n| A workflow messages a booked customer | Only by her noticing, as with Thomas | Nothing. The exit rule is not built | Draft the fix and the test | Applying it to a live workflow |\n| The engine stops | The watchdog val, and the dashboard banner turns amber or red in plain words | Watchdog reports | Redeploy from the bundle | Nothing |\n\nThe honest gap in that table is Manychat and the workflow exit rule. Both are detected by a human\nnoticing. Neither is safe to close alone.\n\n## WHAT RUNS ON A SCHEDULE, AND HOW I KNOW IT RAN\n\n- **The holiday deposit refresh, hourly**, labelled `deposits-cron`. Observed running by itself\n seven times, the last at 16:08:21Z on 7 August, read from the endpoint without `run=1` so it\n cannot be a person. Verified by reading `lastAttemptAt` and `lastAttemptBy` on the endpoint. If\n `lastAttemptBy` is missing or the stamp is over two hours old, it stopped.\n- **The engine's own interval.** Same gate, same function, so the two cannot drift.\n- Nothing else runs. Nothing sends.\n\n## THE STATE FILE\n\n`handover/RESUME.md`, updated as work happens rather than at the end. It carries what is done, what\nis in flight, what is blocked and why, the live URLs, and the recovery procedure. The container\nreverted five times on 7 August, so the rule is: rebundle the moment the tree is green, and if a\nsession starts cold, run `node scripts/restore.mjs` before anything else.\n\n## WHAT MUST BE TRUE WHEN HE IS BACK FOR THIS TO HAVE BEEN A GOOD WEEK\n\n1. Kim never waited more than a few hours for an answer, and never had to ask twice.\n2. Sunday's call happened with Amir on it and a one page brief in his hand, and nothing was signed.\n3. Every date promised in Friday's message was met, or she was told before it slipped, not after.\n4. No customer of hers received anything. Practice mode held.\n5. The return on ad spend question has a real answer or a plainly stated reason it does not.\n\n\n\n=====FILE handover/DRAFTS-WHILE-AWAY.md =====\n# DRAFTS READY TO SEND — Amir sends, nobody else\n\nNo dashes anywhere. Answer in the first line. Send as is or cut.\n\n---\n\n## 1. SUNDAY CALL — send this tonight or first thing. Everything else can wait, this cannot.\n\nSubject: Sunday 3pm, I will be there\n\nKim,\n\nI have seen Kristian's note about Sunday at 3pm your time. I will be on it.\n\nThe invite went to your inbox rather than mine, so send it across when you get a minute and I will\naccept it properly. Worth checking it lands in your calendar too, because Google flagged it as\ncoming from an unknown sender, which means it may be sitting in your inbox rather than on your day.\n\nI have the briefing note ready, four pages, and I will send you a one page version on Sunday\nmorning so you are not reading anything long before the call.\n\nOne thing to hold on to during it. He is walking you through software that has never run on your\nsystem. You can watch it, ask about it, and like it. Accepting it, and starting the 30 day warranty\nclock, is a separate decision and it does not have to happen on the call.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n## 2. MANYCHAT — send alongside the above\n\nSubject: Manychat card has failed twice\n\nKim,\n\nManychat has tried to take $39 twice and both times it failed. The second email says \"unsuccessful\nagain\", so this is not a one off.\n\nWorth two minutes because of where it sits. Facebook brought 538 of the 748 messages that came in\nlast week, which is nearly three quarters of everything, and Manychat is on that side of the funnel.\nIf it suspends, the thing that quietly stops is Facebook lead capture, and it will not announce\nitself.\n\nThe fix is a card update in Manychat billing. I have not touched it because it is your money and\nyour card, and I am not going near either.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n## 3. IF SHE CHASES THE REPORT AGAIN\n\nKim,\n\nIt went over on Upwork on Friday night, the message and a five page PDF. You emailed about it at\n9:34 and I answered on Upwork, so if you are watching email you will not have seen it.\n\nSay the word and I will send everything to your email from now on instead. Easier for you to have\nit in one place than to remember which channel a thing arrived on.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n## 4. IF SHE ASKS TO GO LIVE ON THE PUPPY FOLLOW UP\n\nKim,\n\nYes, and it is one move now rather than three, because you confirmed the old puppy workflow has\nnever been used.\n\nThe move is: ours on, the old one off, the tagging on, in that order and in one go. Doing it in\npieces is exactly what happened to Thomas, where two systems both thought he was theirs.\n\nGive me a window when you are at a screen and we will do it together, so you watch the first one go\nout rather than hear about it afterwards. Twenty minutes.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n## 5. IF SHE ASKS ABOUT THE DEPOSIT BLOCKING VERSION\n\nKim,\n\nShort answer, yes it can be built, and it is worth being clear about what changes for your\ncustomers before you decide.\n\nTo stop a booking completing without a deposit, the booking has to move off the form on your website\nand into the CRM. That means the link your customers use changes, and the page they land on looks\ndifferent. The software part is straightforward. The part worth thinking about is whether you want\nyour holiday booking journey to change in the run up to Thanksgiving.\n\nThe version running now lists who has paid and who has not, so nothing is chased by memory. That\nholds fine through this season if you would rather move the bigger change to January.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n## 6. IF SOMETHING BREAKS AND SHE NOTICES FIRST\n\nKim,\n\nI can see it and I am on it. Here is what I know so far and what I do not.\n\n[what is broken, in her words]\n[what it does and does not affect, specifically who if anyone was contacted]\n[what I am doing, and when I will next tell you something]\n\nNothing has gone to a customer.\n\nAmir\n\n---\n\n**Rule for anything not covered:** a holding reply within the hour saying what is being done and\nwhen she will hear next. Never silence. Silence is what caused this week.\n\n\n\n=====FILE handover/MESSAGE-TO-KIM-7-AUG.txt =====\nHi Kim,\n\nSorry this is late in the day. Your Friday report is here and it should have reached you this\nmorning. Busy day at my end, which is a reason and not much of an excuse.\n\nI also went quiet for two days before that. You should not have had to ask twice.\n\nTaking everything in order.\n\nTHE DEPOSIT, AND A CORRECTION YOU NEED BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE\n\nYou asked whether I was setting it up so a holiday booking cannot be confirmed until the deposit is\npaid. I am not. I did write this on Thursday and it clearly did not land, which is my fault for\nburying it in a long message rather than yours for missing it. So, plainly this time.\n\nWhat is built and running reads your Square payments and gives you one list of who has paid and who\nstill needs checking. It lists. It does not block. Nobody is stopped from booking.\n\nBlocking the booking is a different and bigger job, because it means holiday bookings stop going\nthrough the form on your website and start going through the CRM instead. That changes where your\ncustomers book, which is a change to your business rather than to software. Worth talking through\nbefore either of us commits to it.\n\nTwo things that are already done inside the version that exists. It counts $50 per dog, so a three\ndog stay reads $150. And it works Thanksgiving out fresh every year rather than storing a date.\n\nThe nonrefundable wording you asked for I can add this week, and it does not depend on the above.\n\nTHE FRIDAY REPORT\n\nFacebook, Google and your CRM, for 31 July to 6 August. Every number came out of the platform today.\nNothing carried over, nothing estimated. Where a figure could not be verified I have written that\ninstead of filling the gap. The full one page version comes over right behind this message.\n\nThe short version. You spent $718.98 on ads. Facebook took $554.98 and started 127 conversations at\n$4.37 each. Google took $164.00 and brought 80 clicks and 4 conversions at $41.00 each. 175 new\npeople came into the CRM, down 22 on the week before. 55 appointments, 38 showed.\n\nTwo campaigns are carrying Facebook. Kims New Except4Ads#2 and the April 10th copy brought 91 of\nthose 127 conversations at under $3.90 each. Training Tips is your dearest at $6.21.\n\nTHE ANSWER TO WHAT IT COSTS AGAINST WHAT IT BRINGS IN\n\nYou asked for this and it is the honest half of the report. The cost side is solid and it is above.\nThe return side cannot be answered yet, and the reason matters.\n\nYour CRM holds 5,768 opportunities. The number marked won is zero. Not zero this week. Zero ever.\nOne record sits in a stage called Won, Paid and is flagged lost, and it is a test record.\n\nSo nothing in the system knows what a booking is worth, which means nobody can honestly divide money\nspent by money earned. Anyone who shows you a return on ad spend figure today is guessing.\n\nBefore I put a return figure in front of you I want to check the tracking we built in July, the one\nthat ties a paying customer back to the ad that brought them. It needed a few minutes of manual\nmatching each week to stay accurate, and if that slipped while everything else was going on then the\nfix is small. I would rather confirm that than invent a number. Monday.\n\nRelated, and worse. Over the six days Facebook and your CRM both cover, Facebook says it started 127\nconversations and your CRM took in 149 new people. Close enough to be the same people. But 120 of\nthose 149 have no source recorded at all, and not one is attributed to Facebook. So the money went\nout and the people came in, and nothing connects the two. Closing that is the difference between a\nreport describing your week and a report telling you where to put the next dollar.\n\nTHE 175, SINCE YOU ASKED WHAT IT COUNTS\n\nIt is 175 new contact records, one per new person. Not chats, and not inflated by Ava. Ava sends\noutbound messages and an outbound message never creates a contact.\n\nTwo checks. Real inbound messages that week were 748 and outbound were 1,143, so 175 cannot be a\nmessage count. And 246 different people wrote to you that week, 175 new and 71 returning. If\nanything the headline undercounts how busy you were.\n\nGOING LIVE ON THE PUPPY FOLLOW UP\n\nYou told me the old puppy workflow has never been used and can go off any time. That was the piece I\nwas waiting on. It is now one coordinated move rather than three, and I can do it whenever you say.\n\nYOUR COPY CHANGES\n\nAll noted and all going in. Touch 2 loses \"I got your message\" and opens on the welcome. The pup talk\ncopy says what it is and stops saying what it is not. The no show and no sale messages lose \"I won't\nchase you\" and keep the line about calling any time. \"Getting on\" becomes \"going\". Water intoxication\nand back to school go into the July and August notes.\n\nYour name versus the business name is the one I do not want to change quietly, because there is a\nreal trade off. Messages from a named person get replied to more often than messages from a business.\nWhat you are describing is a good reason to change it anyway, so I would rather talk it through than\nguess. Worth ten minutes when you are back.\n\nTHE TWO CALENDARS\n\nFree training day pick up, 30 minutes, 3:30pm to a 4:30pm last start, all done by 5pm, usual\nworkflows. And the second pup talk calendar as a copy of the first under its own name. Both by\nTuesday.\n\nWHAT I HAVE NOT DONE YET, WITH DATES\n\nYour page showing times but no dates. I have not reproduced it yet and I will not tell you it is\nfixed until I have. Monday.\n\nTag cleanup and the unused tags in the drop down, Wednesday. Your CRM does not record when a tag was\napplied, only that a record changed, so tracking that properly needs a small piece built rather than\na setting switched. I will show you what it can and cannot do before building it.\n\nThe free training day workflow rebuild, Wednesday. You said the abandoned booking one is yours and\nyou are open to redoing it. I would rather do that with you watching than edit a live workflow of\nyours while you are away.\n\nPups Club self unsubscribe, Thursday.\n\nCandace's app freezing. Still on it. The one measurable thing so far is that your account holds five\nand a half thousand conversations and loading them one at a time looks exactly like a freeze.\n\nBOOTCAMP DEPOSIT\n\nYou told me it should read $500 and that the payment was set up to go to PayPal rather than Square. I\nhave taken that as the answer and I am building it both ways so whichever it turns out to be is a\nfive minute change, not a rebuild.\n\nNothing has sent to anybody. Everything stays in practice mode until you say the word.\n\nAmir\n\n\n\n=====FILE reports/Friday-Report-7-Aug-2026.html =====\n\n\n\nThe Dogs Spot, week of 31 July to 6 August 2026\n

\n\n

The Dogs Spot, week of 31 July to 6 August 2026

Read live from each account on Friday 7 August. Every figure below came out of the\nplatform itself. Nothing is carried over from last week's file and nothing is estimated.

\n\n

Spent on ads

$718.98

Facebook $554.98, Google $164.00

New people in the CRM

175

22 fewer than last week

Appointments

9 fewer than last week, 38 showed

Cost per new person

$4.11

ceiling, since not every lead is paid for

\n\n

The thing worth two minutes

You asked what all this costs against what it brings in. The cost side is solid and it is in this\nreport. The return side I can only half answer this week, and I would rather show you the seam than\npaper over it.

Your pipelines are not recording wins. Of 5,768 opportunities in the CRM, the number marked won is\nzero, and that is true for every week, not just this one. So the pipeline view cannot tell you what a\nbooking was worth.

Money is being recorded, though, somewhere else: 232 payment transactions and 195 orders sit in\nyour account. Only three of those transactions fall inside this week, which does not match a business\ntaking bookings all week, so either most payments are landing outside the CRM or they are landing in\na place this report has not read yet.

There is also the tracking we built in July, which ties a paying customer back to the ad that\nbrought them and feeds the ad performance dashboard. Before I put a return figure in front of you I\nwant to confirm that is still running and still filling in, because it needed a few minutes of manual\nmatching each week to stay accurate. That check is Monday, and then you get the real number rather\nthan a tidy one.

\n\n

Facebook

Account DPU: The DogsSpot. Window 31 July to 5 August. Meta's own date picker will not\nrun to the 6th yet, so this is six days where the rest of the report is seven. Four campaigns of your\n35 were live.

\n\n

Spent

$554.98

4 live campaigns

Conversations started

127

Messenger

Cost per conversation

$4.37

blended across the four

\n\n

Where the money went

Kims New Except4Ads#2

$180.64

APRIL 10th Fresh February Leads - Copy

$170.89

Email CSV AI Campaign

$116.49

Training Tips-Messenger Leads-6/26

$86.96

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

Campaign	Spent	Conversations	Cost each
Kims New Except4Ads#2	$180.64	47	$3.84
APRIL 10th Fresh February Leads - Copy	$170.89	44	$3.88
Email CSV AI Campaign	$116.49	22	$5.30
Training Tips-Messenger Leads-6/26	$86.96	14	$6.21
Free Training Day Website 6/19	$0.00	0	off
Total	$554.98	127	$4.37

\n\n

What I read into it. Two campaigns are doing the work. Kims New Except4Ads#2 and\nthe April 10th copy brought 91 of the 127 conversations at under $3.90 each. Training Tips is the\nweakest at $6.21, roughly 60 percent more expensive per conversation than your best, on the smallest\nbudget. If you want a cheap experiment next week, move the Training Tips budget onto the April 10th\ncampaign and see whether the cost per conversation holds when it gets more money. That is a real\ntest rather than a tidy up, because the usual result is that costs rise with budget, and it is\nbetter to find that out at $15 a day than at $30.

\n\n

Google

Account 942-544-7945, The Dogs Spot. Window 31 July to 6 August. Six campaigns.

\n\n

Spent

$164.00

Clicks

from 970 impressions

Cost per click

$2.05

Conversions

$41.00 each

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

Measure	This week	How it is worked out
Cost per click	$2.05	$164.00 divided by 80 clicks
Cost per conversion	$41.00	$164.00 divided by 4 conversions
Click through rate	8.25%	80 clicks divided by 970 impressions
Your share of available searches	32%	Google's figure, up from 29%
Rover's share of the same searches	24%	Google's figure, up from 22%

\n\n

What I read into it. An 8.25 percent click through rate is strong for local\nsearch, so the ads themselves are working. Google is the smaller spend and the more expensive lead\nat $41 against Facebook's $4.37, but they are not the same thing being bought. A Google click is\nsomebody typing \"dog boarding Savannah\" at the moment they need it. A Facebook conversation is\nsomebody who was scrolling. The Google number is only bad if those four conversions are worth less\nthan $41 each, and right now nothing in the CRM records what any of them were worth, which is the\nsame gap as above. You are also gaining ground on Rover, up three points against their two.

\n\n

Your CRM

Window 31 July to 6 August. Every figure here was pulled from the CRM and then worked\nout a second time, from the raw data, by somebody who had not seen the first answer. All 23 figures\nagreed.

\n\n

New people

175

was 197

Messages in

748

1,143 went out

Calls

120

96 answered, was 66

Appointments

38 showed, 2 no shows

\n\n

Where the 175 came from

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

Channel	Messages in	Notes
Facebook	538	72% of everything that came in
Phone	71	120 calls in total, 24 unanswered
Text	71
Instagram	46
Email	4

\n\n

The 175, since you asked what it counts

It is 175 new contact records, one per new person. It is not a count of chats and it is not\ninflated by Ava. Ava sends outbound messages, and an outbound message never creates a contact.

Two checks confirm it. Real inbound messages that week were 748 and outbound were 1,143, so 175\ncannot be a message tally. And 246 different people sent you something that week, 175 of them new\nand 71 returning, so if anything the headline undercounts how busy the week was.

\n\n

The gap between what the ads claim and what your CRM received

This is the most useful line in the report, and it is not good news yet.

Over the six days both platforms cover, Facebook says it started 127 conversations.\nYour CRM took in 149 new people over the same six days. Those two numbers are close\nenough to be the same people. But of those 149, only 29 carry any source at all, 120 have nothing\nrecorded, and not one is attributed to Facebook.

So the honest position today is that $718.98 went out, 175 people came in, and nothing in your\nsystem can tell you which ones the money bought. That is not a reporting problem I can write around.\nIt is a tracking gap, and closing it is the difference between this report describing your week and\nthis report telling you where to put your next dollar.

\n\n

Appendix, every number and where it came from

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

Figure	Value	Source and method
Facebook spend	$554.98	Ads Manager, account 938090411743620, 31 Jul to 5 Aug, sum of the four live campaigns
Facebook conversations	127	Same view, sum of the Results column
Facebook cost per conversation	$4.37	554.98 divided by 127
Facebook consistency check	4 of 4	Each campaign's spend divided by its results matches Meta's own cost per result to the cent
Google spend, clicks, impressions, conversions	$164, 80, 970, 4	Google Ads overview, account 942-544-7945, 31 Jul to 6 Aug
New contacts, this week and last	175 and 197	CRM contact search on date added, converted to New York time before bucketing, two independent pulls agreed
Appointments	55 and 64	All 29 calendars queried one at a time, 197 raw events, bucketed on start time
Messages in and out	748 and 1,143	660 conversations pulled in full, 15,488 messages, system audit entries excluded
Calls	120, 96 answered	Call type messages, answered means completed
Opportunities won, all time	0	All 5,768 opportunities paginated: 5,594 open, 174 lost, 0 won, 0 abandoned. This is the pipeline view only, not a statement about money received
Payment records in the CRM	232 and 195	Transactions and orders. Three transactions fall inside this week, which is being checked before any return figure is quoted
Contacts with no source, 31 Jul to 5 Aug	120 of 149	Source field on each new contact record

\n\n

Two honest limits. Meta's date picker stops at 5 August, so the Facebook figures cover\nsix days and everything else covers seven, and the reconciliation above deliberately compares only\nthe six days both cover. And campaign names are printed exactly as they appear in Ads Manager, so\nyou can find them, which is why some of them read oddly.

\n\n

Built by hand this week. The automated version that fills itself in is still being\nbuilt.

\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"]