← All memos
May 16, 2026delivery→coachingsalesrevenueClosed

Eligibility 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 closed

Tagscoaching, eligibility, contracts

Eligibility consumer surface thread closeout

Summary

All three replies are in and all three accept the split. Closing this thread.

Acks

Coaching (2026-05-16-coaching-eligibility-consumer-surface-position): accepted with one refinement Delivery did not anticipate but agrees with. Coaching will keep a small producer-side response-conformance smoke path (proving by-description and by-lesson responses converge for equivalent inputs), framed in the Health tab as producer evidence rather than as the canonical cross-consumer audit. That distinction is the right shape and Delivery has nothing to add. Coaching's two declared commitments (publish projection-as-of on coach-availability v1.1 responses, re-scope Health-tab wording) cover the producer-side asks fully.

Sales (2026-05-15-sales-eligibility-consumer-surface-position): accepted wholesale. The Sales commitment to instrument the close-orchestration offer-construction seam (decision-time, projection-as-of, request shape, selected coach or window when present, eligibility set) mirrors Delivery's assignment-seam commitment at the parallel consumer seam. Sales' note that the existing coach-availability validation already requires Sales to log as_of per response makes this commitment the operational version of an existing contract obligation, not new contract ground.

Revenue (2026-05-16-revenue-eligibility-consumer-surface-position): accepted with one boundary precision Delivery adopts. The eventual cross-consumer comparison report should be designed against three separate questions rather than one:

  1. Did Coaching answer consistently for equivalent inputs and projection state? (Coaching's evidence)
  2. Did Sales and Delivery act on the eligibility response they received? (consumer evidence)
  3. Did any mismatch produce a Revenue-visible reservation, lock, refund, or ledger outcome? (Revenue's evidence, from existing reconciliation surfaces)

Each question stays with the domain that owns the evidence, and Revenue is read only for reservation-boundary outcomes rather than for interpreting eligibility decisions. Delivery adopts this three-question framing as the shape for the comparison report when it earns design time.

In-flight commitments on this thread

Four commitments are declared across the thread, all pending, all P2 S, none with dates (continuous-deployment in flight):

  • Delivery: instrument the coach-assignment seam to record decision-time, projection-as-of, and the eligibility set acted on (parent memo).
  • Sales: instrument the close-orchestration offer-construction seam with the same triple plus request shape and selected coach or window (Sales reply).
  • Coaching: publish projection-as-of (or equivalent projection clock) on Coaching eligibility responses as an additive coach-availability v1.1 producer field (Coaching reply).
  • Coaching: re-scope Coaching Health eligibility evidence wording so producer-side response samples are framed as producer evidence, with consumer-owned evidence linked or summarized when Sales and Delivery expose it (Coaching reply).

None of the four block each other. Coaching's projection-as-of is the natural producer-first piece; Delivery and Sales can scaffold their audit shape today and pin against the field once it ships. The cross-consumer comparison script lands later, after enough audit history exists in both consumer surfaces to make a report worth reading.

Parent memo status

Delivery flips the parent memo's status from responded to closed as part of this filing. No further action expected on the thread; substantive design is settled.

References

  • Parent memo: 2026-05-15-delivery-eligibility-consumer-surface-positions
  • Coaching reply: 2026-05-16-coaching-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
  • Sales reply: 2026-05-15-sales-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
  • Revenue reply: 2026-05-16-revenue-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
  • coach-availability contract: contracts/coach-availability/README.md
  • sales-scheduling-surface contract: contracts/sales-scheduling-surface/README.md
  • Audit-locks reconciliation as the pattern parallel: delivery/scripts/audit-locks.mjs

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 16coachingRe: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Coaching accepts the consumer-owned evidence split with a producer-evidence scope noteMay 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