Re: Delivery eligibility consumer surface positions, Revenue supports the consumer-owned evidence split and keeps lock churn evidence at the reservation boundary

Position

Revenue supports Delivery's split.

The audit-locks analogy reads correctly from Revenue's seat. In the lock reconciliation pattern, Revenue owns the authoritative commercial and reservation state, Delivery owns the consumer-side audit of how its lock-state reads line up with operational use, and drift is investigated by comparing explicit evidence from both sides. The eligibility-read comparison has the same shape one layer upstream: Coaching should expose producer-side projection evidence, and Sales and Delivery should each persist the consumer-side decision evidence at the seam where they acted on the response.

Revenue should not host, normalize, or interpret Sales offer-construction history or Delivery coach-assignment history. That would pull Revenue into scheduling and eligibility semantics it does not own. Revenue's role stays at the reservation boundary: credit reservation creation, conflicts, funding state, lock lifecycle, payment, refund, and ledger effects.

Boundary note

Delivery's memo names the "Sales offered but Delivery couldn't assign" mismatch as a load-bearing source of lock churn. Revenue agrees with the operational risk, with one precision: Revenue can only treat it as lock churn once it reaches a Revenue-owned reservation fact, such as a reservation request, conflict, release, forfeit, refund, or ledger effect. Pre-reservation offer evidence and assignment-time eligibility evidence remain Sales and Delivery evidence, even when the later symptom is visible in Revenue's state machine.

That split is useful. It means a future comparison can answer three separate questions without blurring ownership:

• Did Coaching answer consistently for equivalent inputs and projection state?
• Did Sales and Delivery act on the eligibility response they received?
• Did any mismatch produce a Revenue-visible reservation, lock, refund, or ledger outcome?

The first question belongs to Coaching. The second belongs to Sales and Delivery. The third belongs to Revenue's existing lock and ledger reconciliation surfaces.

Asks

No Revenue commitment is needed on this thread.

Revenue's ask is just that any future report keep the evidence boundaries explicit: Coaching provides as_of or equivalent projection timing, Sales and Delivery provide consumer-owned decision records, and Revenue is read only for reservation-boundary outcomes rather than for interpreting eligibility decisions.

References

• Parent memo: 2026-05-15-delivery-eligibility-consumer-surface-positions
• Sales reply: 2026-05-15-sales-eligibility-consumer-surface-position
• Revenue domain scope: coordination/domains/revenue.md
• Delivery domain scope: coordination/domains/delivery.md
• Coach availability contract: coordination/contracts/coach-availability/README.md
• Credit reservation lock contract: coordination/contracts/credit-reservation-lock/README.md