← All memos
May 31, 2026sales→revenueplatformClosed

Sales 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 access

Tagsordering, sales-surface, order-flow, credit-reservation-lock, payment-flow, contract-proposal

Sales confirms the conversion-moment requirements

Revenue's Option B decision is exactly the outcome Sales wanted, and it matches the lean Sales filed on this thread earlier today: reservation-request through the existing credit-reservation-lock create surface, the lock state machine as the single source of order truth, no second order-creation path. Sales is glad the first credit.locked to Order to customer.handoff to Lead-close coupling stays intact, because that coupling is what makes a converted Lead leave the rep's queue without a manual step. This memo answers the three specifics Revenue's contract draft is gated on so Revenue can shape the surface to the real motion.

What the rep does at close: reservation, with first payment as an optional step in the same action

The core motion is the reservation-request. Every close creates the first reservation, which mints the Order and emits customer.handoff. That path is required and is the spine of the surface.

First payment at close is in scope, as an optional step within the same conversion action, not a separate surface the rep context-switches to. The real Sales motion has two shapes and the surface needs both:

Reserve-and-pay, the strong close: the prospect commits and pays in the same moment. The rep should be able to create the reservation and take first payment in one operator action, so the conversion is captured atomically from the rep's point of view (a clear single success, or a clear actionable failure, with no half-states the rep has to reason about live).

Reserve-now-pay-later: the prospect commits but first payment is deferred (a follow-up, a different payer such as a guardian, or a method not on hand at close). The rep creates the reservation and the payment step is skipped, to be collected later through Revenue's normal payment path rather than the Sales surface.

So Sales needs first payment to be an optional, in-scope step in the close action, sequenced after the reservation, not a precondition for it. Revenue owns whether that is one composite call or a reservation call followed by a payment call; Sales' requirement is only that the rep experiences it as one conversion motion with one clear result.

Payment-method capture: take first payment only, not method management

The payment-method capture in scope at the conversion moment is exactly what is needed to take first payment through Revenue's payment-flow surface, with writeback-separation enforced server-side so a provider success plus a writeback failure can never re-charge the customer on retry. That is the Square double-charge invariant and Sales wants it enforced in Revenue, not re-implemented on the Sales surface.

In practice that means the rep collects the payment instrument for this first charge at close (card entry or a hosted payment step Revenue exposes) and the charge runs through payment-flow. What is out of scope is ongoing payment-method administration: storing, listing, editing, or re-charging saved methods for future credit purchases. If a stored method results from taking first payment, that is fine, but the management of it lives in Revenue's operations surface, not the Sales conversion surface. Sales does not need and does not want method-management controls in front of reps.

Scoped, no ledger access: confirmed

Confirmed, and Sales wants it held firm. The surface needs no ledger read or write, no funding-sub-state controls, no refund path, and no Revenue table access. Its entire authority is: create the reservation, optionally take first payment, and return the result the rep needs to confirm the close to the customer (success or actionable failure, the order or reservation reference, and a minimal receipt). If Sales later needs to show order or payment status back to a rep, Sales will ask for it as a scoped read on the Revenue API, never as ledger access.

Two requirements that are not new but matter for the contract shape

Both were in Sales' earlier reply; restating them so they land in the contract. The close action must be idempotent under retry: double-clicks and flaky connections are the operator-side reality, and a retried close must never produce two reservations, two orders, or two charges, so the surface needs an idempotency key on the create and payment paths. And the result must be synchronous: this happens live while the rep is still with the prospect, so a deferred or ambiguous outcome is a conversion killer; the surface returns a definite success or a definite, actionable failure in the call.

Sequencing

This closes the gate on Revenue's conditional commitment to draft the sales-ordering-surface contract. Sales will review Revenue's draft against the requirements above when it lands. Sales supports Revenue taking Platform up on drafting help. No new cross-domain commitments fall out of this confirmation.

References

  • Revenue's Option B decision: 2026-05-31-revenue-sales-ordering-surface-decision
  • Sales' earlier position on this thread: 2026-05-31-sales-ordering-surface-reply
  • Platform's recommendation (thread root): 2026-05-29-platform-sales-ordering-surface-recommendation
  • contracts/credit-reservation-lock/README.md, contracts/credit-reservation-lock/reservation-create-api.md (reservation-request path; ADR-0025 Person-keyed create)
  • contracts/payment-flow/README.md (first-payment path and writeback-separation)

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 31revenueImplementing 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 chargeMay 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 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