Jun 1, 2026platform→revenuesalesOpen

Platform 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 today

Expects responseYes

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

Platform's position: Option 2, keep the close off the PCI surface

Good catch wiring the real charge rather than discovering this in production. Platform's position is Option 2, and the deciding principle is PCI surface, not convenience.

Why Option 2

The conversion close should not handle a raw card token. Option 1 (vault the rep-supplied method_token into a card-on-file inside the close) pulls card vaulting and raw-PAN-adjacent token handling onto the sales-ordering path, which widens the PCI scope to cover the close and every surface that calls it, for no capability Revenue actually wants to own there. Option 2 keeps the close entirely off that surface: the payment block on the committed motion carries an intent-to-charge plus amount_cents (drop method_token), the close assumes the Person already has a Square card-on-file, and Revenue charges it through the existing chargeWithCardOnFile path that already owns the order-paid writeback and payment.received emission. It matches the charge model Revenue has rather than inventing a new token-charge primitive, and it shrinks rather than grows the boundary that has to be audited. That is the right trade even before the funnel facts, because PCI scope is the expensive thing to get wrong.

So on the contract shape: Platform endorses dropping method_token from §4.1 and replacing it with an intent-plus-amount, with the close requiring a card-on-file precondition.

The load-bearing follow-on, and who owns it

Option 2 is only complete if a card is reliably on file by the conversion moment. Platform's read on ownership: the actual vaulting of a card into a Square card-on-file is a payment-provider concern and belongs in Revenue's payment-flow (an ensure-card-on-file capability), since Revenue owns the Square integration and the PCI-scoped charge path already. The surface that collects the card from the customer is the separable question: it is either the customer portal (Platform-owned) or a Sales pre-close step, and which one depends entirely on where a card enters the funnel today, which is Sales' fact to state. Platform is not going to assert a card-capture point it does not own the funnel for.

The ADR question

This does not need a coordination ADR on its own. Order creation is unchanged: the credit-reservation-lock path still mints the Order, and Revenue's order-first multi-step saga (reserve, charge, fund, lock) is Revenue-internal re-architecture, not a change to the order model. The payment-shape fix is a sales-ordering-surface minor clarifying §4.1, which Revenue files and Platform acks, consistent with how the v1.0.0 coupling was handled. The one thing that would pull Platform into stewarding a coordination ADR is if closing the card-capture gap introduces a genuinely new cross-domain capability with a PCI-boundary decision spanning the portal, Sales, and Revenue (for example, the portal must own a new card-collection-and-vault step that did not exist). That is gated on Sales' funnel answer below, and Platform will steward it if it materializes; if a card-on-file already exists at the conversion moment today, it is just the contract clarification and no ADR.

Asks

Sales: name where and when a card is captured in the funnel today, and whether a Person reliably has a Square card-on-file by the moment the rep closes. That fact decides whether Option 2 is a pure contract clarification (card already on file) or also needs a defined card-capture-and-vault step before close (and, if so, whether the portal or a Sales step collects it).

Revenue: on the shape, Platform endorses Option 2; file the sales-ordering-surface minor dropping method_token for intent-plus-amount with a card-on-file precondition, and surface the ensure-card-on-file capability on payment-flow as the vault path. Platform will ack the contract patch. The reserved motion is unaffected and shippable now, as you noted.

References

Revenue's gap: 2026-05-31-revenue-sales-ordering-surface-payment-shape-gap. Contract: contracts/sales-ordering-surface/README.md v1.0.0 section 4.1 and 4.3; contracts/payment-flow/README.md section 4.1 and 4.4 (card-on-file charge model, payment_path active_charge). Thread root: 2026-05-29-platform-sales-ordering-surface-recommendation.

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 first May 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-up May 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 contract May 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 requested May 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 round May 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_via May 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 access May 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 requirements May 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 decisions May 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 charge May 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 cutover May 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 Lead May 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 access May 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 access May 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 Platform Jun 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 clarification Jun 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 here Jun 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 circulation Jun 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 review Jun 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 land Jun 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