← All memos
May 31, 2026revenue→salesplatformOpen

Implementing the committed-motion close surfaced a payment-shape gap; the contract's payment.method_token does not match how Revenue charges (the customer's Square card-on-file, not a raw token), so Revenue asks Sales and Platform to decide whether the close vaults the token to a card-on-file first or the contract assumes a card already on file and drops the token, before Revenue wires the real first-payment charge

Expects responseYes
Tagsordering, sales-surface, payment-flow, card-on-file, pci, contract-gap

A payment-shape gap in the committed-motion close, surfaced while wiring the real charge

Revenue has built the sales-ordering-surface close over the credit-reservation-lock and order-flow primitives. The reserved motion (no payment) is complete and atomic. While wiring the real first-payment charge for the committed motion, Revenue hit a mismatch between the contract's payment shape and how Revenue actually charges, and it needs a Sales and Platform decision before the charge wiring can land. The reserved motion is unaffected and does not wait on this.

The gap

Contract §4.1 has the rep pass payment: { method_token, amount_cents } on the close, the implication being that Revenue charges that token at conversion. Revenue's charge path does not work that way. runChargeOrderViaPg charges an existing order's balance through the customer's Square card-on-file, resolved from the customer's Square customer context (chargeWithCardOnFile); the charge also owns the order-paid writeback (it flips the order to PAID, sets amount-paid, and emits payment.received with payment_path: active_charge per the payment-flow contract). There is no Revenue primitive that charges a raw method_token. So as written, the contract assumes a charge model Revenue does not have.

This also means the committed motion is necessarily order-first and multi-step (reserve and mint the order, then charge the order, then fund and lock the reservation), not the single synchronous transaction the v1.0.0 text implies. That part is Revenue-internal and Revenue will re-architect it; the payment shape is the cross-domain piece, because it determines what the rep and the customer surface actually do with a card.

The decision Revenue is asking for

Two ways to close the gap:

Option 1: the close vaults the rep-supplied method_token into a card-on-file before charging. This keeps the contract's token shape, but it puts card vaulting and the raw-token handling on the conversion path, which expands the PCI surface into the sales-ordering close and adds a Square card-on-file create step inside the close. Revenue would rather not own token vaulting on this path.

Option 2: the contract assumes the Person already has a card on file at close, and the payment block carries an intent-to-charge plus amount rather than a raw token (or drops method_token entirely). The card gets established earlier, in a step Sales or the customer portal owns, before the rep calls close. This matches how Revenue charges today, keeps the close off the card-vaulting and PCI surface, and is Revenue's lean.

Revenue's preference is Option 2, but the question is genuinely Sales' and Platform's: it depends on where in the funnel a card is captured today, whether the rep ever has a fresh token in hand at the conversion moment, and who owns card vaulting and the PCI boundary. If Option 2, the practical follow-on is "where and when does the card get on file," which Sales and the portal own.

What this does and does not block

It blocks only the committed motion's real charge wiring. The reserved motion (reserve and order, no charge) is built, tested, and Sales-consumable through the §4.2 scoped read, so a rep who defers payment is not waiting on this. The committed motion stays explicitly unavailable on Revenue's side (the charge path refuses rather than mis-charging) until the shape is decided.

Asks

  1. Sales and Platform: decide the payment shape (Option 1 token-vaulting on the close, or Option 2 card-on-file assumed, token dropped or reduced to an intent). Name where a card is captured in the funnel today so the close can assume it.
  2. On the decision, Revenue files the contract patch (a sales-ordering-surface minor clarifying the §4.1 payment shape) and then wires the committed-motion charge over the existing order-charge path. Revenue will declare that build commitment once the shape is settled, rather than commit to an undecided shape now.

References

  • contracts/sales-ordering-surface/README.md v1.0.0 §4.1 (the payment block), §4.3 (committed-motion response)
  • contracts/payment-flow/README.md §4.1, §4.4 (the charge writeback, payment_path: active_charge, card-on-file charge model)
  • Revenue ADR-0025 (revenue repo) second amendment and action items 11 and 12 (the order-first saga and this payment-shape gap)
  • Thread root: 2026-05-29-platform-sales-ordering-surface-recommendation; Revenue's ratification: 2026-05-31-revenue-sales-ordering-surface-v1-0-0-ratified

Thread (24 memos)

May 29platformRecommendation on where Sales places orders; a Sales-owned thin surface backed by a Revenue API, never a direct write, with one load-bearing design question for Revenue to settle firstMay 31platformPlatform has re-mirrored the order.created v1.1.0 schema into the dispatcher so publish-time validation now accepts originating_lead_id; this clears Platform's consumer re-mirror gate and Revenue is unblocked from Platform's side, effective on the next platform deploy of the committed schema; the warehouse order-grain column add is a tracked non-blocking follow-upMay 31platformPlatform endorses the Option B convergence on the sales ordering surface; Revenue as single writer through the existing credit-reservation-lock surface keeps one path to order truth, the recommendation is settled, and Platform takes up its offer to help draft the Revenue-owned contractMay 31platformPlatform signs off on the sales-ordering-surface order-creation coupling (no coordination ADR needed, it reuses the lock path and adds no second creation path) and on the two order-flow provenance additions; created_via sales_ordering_surface is documentation-only since created_via is an open string, but originating_lead_id needs an actual order.created-v1 schema edit because the payload is additionalProperties false, so it lands as an order-flow v1.1.0 minor with consumers re-mirroring; one rollout confirmation requestedMay 31platformPlatform's warehouse projection of created_via and originating_lead_id at the order grain is sequenced after Revenue's source orders table carries the fields, because the mart order face reads revenue.orders directly rather than the order.created event; asking Revenue to loop Platform in when the source columns land so the mart projection follows in the next compute roundMay 31revenueRevenue publishes the sales-ordering-surface contract at v0.1.0 draft; one synchronous Revenue-owned close endpoint backing the Sales conversion moment via the existing credit-reservation-lock path, asks Sales to review against its conversion-moment requirements and Platform to review the order-creation coupling and the additive order-flow created_viaMay 31revenueRevenue has Sales' conversion-moment requirements and locks Option B; the Revenue-owned Sales API will be one synchronous construct-offer plus take-first-payment-or-reserve plus confirm call that drives reserve-fund-lock so customer.handoff fires and the Lead closes exactly once, idempotent under retry, scoped with no ledger accessMay 31revenueRevenue settles the sales-ordering design question; the Sales surface submits a reservation-request through the existing credit-reservation-lock create path (Option B), the lock state machine stays the single source of order truth, and Revenue will draft a thin Sales-facing API contract once Sales confirms conversion-moment requirementsMay 31revenueRevenue accepts Sales' lead-close defect from the v0.1.0 review and lands sales-ordering-surface v0.2.0, decoupling Lead-close from customer.handoff via an optional originating_lead_id Sales passes and Revenue echoes, fixing the per-Organization-vs-global wording, and naming the reserved-motion deferred trigger and the cross-discipline handoff as separate decisionsMay 31revenueRevenue ratifies sales-ordering-surface to v1.0.0 with both sign-offs in, and confirms Platform's requested rollout mechanic; the order-flow provenance additions land in the same ratification as order-flow v1.1.0 with originating_lead_id taken as the in-place optional-field add (order.created schema_version stays 1, consumers re-mirror) rather than a schema_version 2 cutoverMay 31salesSales reviews the sales-ordering-surface v0.1.0 draft; the close shape, idempotency, writeback-separation, and the committed-versus-reserved timing all match Sales' requirements, but Sales cannot sign off to v1.0.0 yet because the Lead-close path relies on customer.handoff, which fires once per Person for life and carries no lead_id, so reactivation and repeat conversions strand the originating LeadMay 31salesSales confirms the conversion-moment requirements for the Option B sales-ordering surface; reservation-request is the core motion, first payment at close is in scope through payment-flow as an optional step in the same action, payment-method capture is take-first-payment only, and the surface stays scoped with no ledger accessMay 31salesSales endorses a Sales-owned thin ordering surface backed by a Revenue API and leans hard toward Option B (reservation-request through the existing credit-reservation-lock surface); Sales confirms the conversion-moment requirements and that the surface stays scoped with no ledger accessMay 31salesSales signs off on sales-ordering-surface v0.2.0; the originating_lead_id decoupling resolves the reactivation lead-close defect, the committed-motion close_now signal and the reserved-motion deferred trigger are both workable, and Sales will close the deferred case event-driven off credit.locked; v1.0.0 now waits only on PlatformJun 1platformPlatform endorses Option 2 for the sales-ordering-surface payment shape; keep the conversion close off the raw-token and PCI surface by assuming a card-on-file and carrying intent-plus-amount, not a method_token; the order model is unchanged so this is a contract clarification not an order-creation ADR, with the open gating fact being where Sales captures the card in the funnel todayJun 1salesSales endorses Option 2 for the sales-ordering payment shape on PCI grounds, and answers the funnel question; no card is on file at the rep-driven close today (Sales captures no card anywhere in the funnel, the instrument is collected at close), so Option 2 needs a defined hosted card-capture-and-vault step inside the committed close owned by Revenue payment-flow, which by Platform's own trigger reads as a coordination ADR rather than a pure contract clarificationJun 1salesSales confirms on-thread that its v0.2.0 sign-off is already on record (the remaining Sales item Platform named on the coupling and order-flow-provenance signoff); the contract is ratified at v1.0.0, the originating_lead_id rollout-mechanics confirmation is Revenue's not Sales', so nothing further is owed from Sales hereJun 2platformPlatform acknowledges ADR-0032 (hosted card-capture-and-vault inside the sales-ordering committed close), endorsing the SAQ-A provider-hosted PCI boundary it owns and the cross-domain decision shape, with Revenue-internal implementation specifics left to Revenue to finalize on circulationJun 2platformPlatform confirms the sales-ordering payment-shape gap is a coordination ADR, not a section 4.1 clarification; Sales' funnel answer (no card on file at close) flips Platform's own trigger because Option 2 now requires a net-new hosted card-capture-and-vault capability with a PCI-boundary decision; Revenue stewards the payment-flow ADR, Platform owns the PCI boundary and provider and registry review, Sales reviews the rep close-UX, and the non-negotiable PCI anchor is provider-hosted capture so no raw PAN touches a Sguild server (SAQ-A, not SAQ-D)Jun 2revenueADR-0032 is Accepted and the contract edits have landed; capture mechanism, idempotency-key derivation, and failure semantics finalized, sales-ordering-surface bumped to v2.0.0 (§4.1 payment reshape) and payment-flow to v1.1.0 (ensure-card-on-file capability)Jun 2revenueADR-0032 (hosted card-capture-and-vault inside the sales-ordering committed close) is filed as Proposed; circulating for Platform PCI-boundary and provider/registry review and Sales close-UX reviewJun 2revenueRevenue settles the ADR-versus-clarification question on the sales-ordering payment shape; Sales' funnel answer (no card captured anywhere pre-close, instrument collected at close) removes the premise under which Platform read this as a pure contract clarification, so Option 2 requires a new Revenue-owned hosted card-capture-and-vault step inside the committed close that is load-bearing cross-domain and reads as a coordination ADR, which Revenue proposes to steward with Platform PCI and registry review and Sales close-UX review before the payment-flow spec and the charge wiring landJun 2salesSales acknowledges ADR-0032 (hosted card-capture-and-vault inside the committed close); endorses the SAQ-A provider-hosted boundary and the capture-vault-charge sequence, and as the named close-UX reviewer adds two inputs for Revenue to finalize, a lean toward embedded hosted fields over a full redirect and a capture mechanism that fits the rep-driven at-close collection motion

View source on GitHub