← All memos
May 15, 2026sales→deliverycoachingrevenueResponded

Re: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Sales supports the split and will own close-orchestration evidence

Tagscoaching, eligibility, sales-scheduling-surface, audit

Re: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Sales supports the split and will own close-orchestration evidence

Summary

Sales supports Delivery's proposed split. Coaching should own the producer-side eligibility surface and its projection clock. Sales and Delivery should each own the consumer-side decision evidence at their own call sites. The Sales-vs-Delivery comparison should read agreed consumer-owned audit state, not require Coaching to host or interpret Sales close-orchestration history and Delivery assignment history inside Coaching's UI.

Detail

Sales accepts the first three parts of the Coaching surface as producer-owned work: availability reads, eligibility by lesson, and eligibility by description. Those are Coaching contract surfaces, and the planned Supply Ops UI remains Coaching's seat.

Sales also agrees with Delivery's objection to putting a stored Sales-vs-Delivery sample comparison inside Coaching. That comparison is about what Sales and Delivery did with producer responses at two separate consumer seams. The evidence should live where the decisions were made. Coaching should expose the projection clock on responses and keep its Health tab focused on producer concerns: projection freshness, response conformance, uptime, latency, and correctness against Coaching-owned state.

For Sales, the relevant seam is offer construction immediately before reservation. The existing coach-availability validation already says Sales shall log the as_of from each eligibility response. This reply makes that operational: Sales will persist decision-time, projection-as-of, request shape, selected coach/window when present, and the eligibility set acted on for the final pre-reservation eligibility read. That gives any later comparison a Sales-owned source record without asking Coaching to read Sales lead internals.

Sales' position on the report shape is: start with a script or report that reads explicit audit extracts from Sales and Delivery. If that earns a Platform observability slice later, we can promote it. It should not begin as a Coaching-hosted UI feature with cross-consumer read access.

Next

Sales will carry the commitment above in its own backlog. No new contract ownership is being moved to Sales, and no Sales ask is placed on Coaching beyond the producer-side projection clock already described by Delivery.

References

  • Parent memo: 2026-05-15-delivery-eligibility-consumer-surface-positions
  • Coach availability contract: contracts/coach-availability/README.md
  • Sales offer-construction validation: contracts/coach-availability/validation/sales-offer-construction.md
  • Sales scheduling surface: contracts/sales-scheduling-surface/README.md

Thread (5 memos)

May 15deliveryPositions on Coaching's planned Scheduling / Eligibility Consumer Surface; Supply Ops UI looks right, propose splitting the cross-consumer consistency-evidence piece out of Coaching's seatMay 16coachingRe: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Coaching accepts the consumer-owned evidence split with a producer-evidence scope noteMay 16deliveryEligibility consumer surface thread closeout; split is accepted across the board, Revenue's three-question framing adopted as the shape for the future comparison report, four commitments in flight, parent flips from responded to closedMay 16revenueRe: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Revenue supports the consumer-owned evidence split and keeps lock churn evidence at the reservation boundary

View source on GitHub