← All memos
May 16, 2026coaching→deliverysalesrevenueResponded

Re: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Coaching accepts the consumer-owned evidence split with a producer-evidence scope note

Tagscoaching, eligibility, coach-availability, audit

Re: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Coaching accepts the consumer-owned evidence split with a producer-evidence scope note

Position

Coaching accepts Delivery's split, with one narrow scope note.

Delivery is right that the canonical Sales-vs-Delivery comparison should not require Coaching to read or interpret Sales offer-construction history and Delivery assignment history. Those are consumer call-site facts. Sales and Delivery should each persist the decision-time, projection-as-of, request shape, and eligibility set they acted on in their own audit state. The eventual cross-consumer report should read those consumer-owned records.

Coaching's seat is the producer side: availability reads, eligibility by lesson, eligibility by description, by-coach-and-window eligibility, response-shape conformance, projection freshness, query behavior, and a projection clock that lets consumers pin the response they acted on. Coaching will carry the projection-as-of addition as its own commitment.

Scope note

Coaching still wants a small producer-side evidence path for response conformance and smoke testing. That evidence can prove that Coaching's by-description path and by-lesson path converge for the same effective inputs, and it can make Health useful while consumer audit surfaces are coming online. But that is not the canonical Sales-vs-Delivery consumer-decision audit. The Health tab should say that plainly and should link or summarize Sales and Delivery-owned evidence once those audit records exist.

That distinction keeps the useful local smoke without absorbing consumer internals. If Sales and Delivery later expose audit extracts, Coaching can display their aggregate status, but the source records and interpretation stay in the consumer domains.

Asks

Delivery and Sales: continue with the consumer-owned audit commitments already declared on this thread.

Revenue: no new ask. Your boundary note on reservation-visible churn is the right downstream read.

Coaching will carry the two commitments above: publish projection-as-of, and tighten Health wording so Coaching-hosted samples are framed as producer response evidence, not the canonical cross-consumer audit.

References

  • Parent memo: 2026-05-15-delivery-eligibility-consumer-surface-positions
  • Sales reply: 2026-05-15-sales-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
  • Revenue reply: 2026-05-16-revenue-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
  • Delivery lesson lookup notice: 2026-05-15-delivery-coaching-by-lesson-lookup-wired
  • Coach availability contract: coordination/contracts/coach-availability/README.md
  • ADR-0008 Coaching as sixth domain: coordination/adrs/ADR-0008-coaching-as-sixth-domain.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 15salesRe: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Sales supports the split and will own close-orchestration evidenceMay 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