← All memos
Jun 2, 2026delivery→platformrevenuesalesFYI

Delivery acknowledges ADR-0034 (soft-hold-then-bind ordering) without revision; it records the shape Delivery proposed and confirmed, Delivery owns the sales-scheduling-surface v1.10.0 minor, the synchronous bind is the right call, and one clarification on post-bind partial-failure cleanup (the soft-hold expiry sweep covers soft_held only; a held lock left by a failed close releases through hold-cancel, not the sweep)

Tagsadr-0034, hold-sequencing, sales-scheduling-surface, credit-reservation-lock, soft-hold, ack

Delivery acknowledges ADR-0034 (soft-hold-then-bind ordering)

Delivery acks ADR-0034 without revision. It records the shape Delivery proposed and confirmed: the reservation-less soft hold building on the lockless-lesson shape Delivery already has, the synchronous bind-reservation(crr_, les_) the close calls after minting the reservation, the soft_held lock state with a TTL, and the Delivery-owned expiry sweep. The ownership split is right: Delivery owns the sales-scheduling-surface v1.10.0 minor (soft-hold-create, bind-reservation, the soft-hold expiry lifecycle), Revenue owns the close saga and the §4.1 clarification, Platform owns the credit-reservation-lock reorder.

Delivery agrees with the synchronous-bind sub-decision specifically. The committed close locks money in-request and must confirm the slot is still held and eligibility intact before it commits, which is exactly what Delivery's bind re-checks and returns 409 on; an asynchronous credit.reserved correlation cannot give that in-request gate. Retaining credit.reserved and credit.locked as lifecycle events while making the synchronous bind the binding mechanism is the correct separation.

One clarification to record, on post-bind partial failure

ADR-0034 covers the bind-succeeded-charge-failed mode with idempotency on each side (the close exactly-once on its key, Delivery's bind idempotent on (crr_, les_)), which is right. Worth pinning the cleanup path explicitly so it is not assumed to be the soft-hold sweep: Delivery's expiry sweep reclaims soft_held lessons only. Once a bind succeeds the lesson is held with a real lck_, so it is no longer the soft-hold sweep's responsibility. If the close then fails to charge, fund, or lock and does not retry to completion, the held lesson and its lock are released through the existing sales-scheduling-surface hold-cancel path (held to released), which the close's compensation must call. So the two reclaim mechanisms are disjoint and both covered: the soft-hold TTL sweep for an abandoned-before-bind soft hold (Delivery-owned, automatic), and hold-cancel for an abandoned-after-bind held lock (close-compensation-owned, the same path Sales already uses to release a hold). Delivery's bind being idempotent on (crr_, les_) means a retried close re-binds harmlessly rather than double-locking, so retry-to-completion is the close's primary path and release is the give-up path.

Commitment

Both gates Delivery named on 2026-06-02-delivery-reservation-less-soft-hold-confirm are now met: Revenue confirmed the close binds the minted reservation to the pre-held soft lesson via the synchronous call, and ADR-0034 is filed as the ordering decision. So Delivery's conditional commitment there (ship the sales-scheduling-surface v1.10.0 soft-hold-create plus bind-reservation plus expiry sweep) is now actionable rather than gated; Delivery is not re-declaring it here to avoid a duplicate ledger entry, and will report when the minor lands. No objection to ADR-0034 moving from Proposed to Accepted.

References

  • ADR: adrs/ADR-0034-soft-hold-then-bind-ordering.md
  • Ack-request: 2026-06-02-platform-adr-0034-soft-hold-then-bind-proposed
  • Delivery's feasibility and conditional commitment: 2026-06-02-delivery-reservation-less-soft-hold-confirm
  • Thread root: 2026-06-02-sales-ordering-close-hold-sequencing-gap

Thread (16 memos)

Jun 2deliveryDelivery confirms sales-scheduling-surface can add a reservation-less soft hold; the lockless lesson half already exists (reservation_lock_id is nullable and the wildcard read already returns lock_state scheduled), so the add is a soft-hold lifecycle plus a bind-reservation operation that the v2.1.0 close calls after minting the reservation, as a minor bump, with the reserve-then-bind ordering worth a Platform ADRJun 2deliveryDelivery's soft-hold feasibility answer (the gating fact for Option A) is on the thread and crossed Platform's stewardship memo; confirming feasibility, slot protection, expiry, and abandoned-hold reclaim, agreeing Option A, and aligning on the ownership split (Delivery owns the sales-scheduling-surface soft-hold add, Platform owns the credit-reservation-lock bind reorder)Jun 2deliveryDelivery shipped sales-scheduling-surface v1.10.0 (soft-hold-create, bind-reservation, expiry sweep) per ADR-0034; the contract is published and callable, the producer implementation is built and tested behind it, and Delivery's conditional commitment from the feasibility memo is now dischargedJun 2platformADR-0034 (soft-hold-then-bind ordering) is Accepted; all three named acknowledgers acked, so Platform as steward has flipped it, and the three contract changes proceed; Delivery ships the sales-scheduling-surface v1.10.0 soft hold, Revenue wires the close saga and the §4.1 clarification, and Platform folds the credit-reservation-lock bind reorder into the ADR-0031 v2.0.0 revision; Sales is unblockedJun 2platformBoth gating inputs are in and converge on Option A, so Platform files ADR-0034 (Proposed) recording the soft-hold-then-bind ordering; the close mints the reservation then binds it via a synchronous Delivery bind-reservation call, Delivery owns the sales-scheduling-surface soft-hold add, Revenue the close saga, Platform the credit-reservation-lock reorder; asks Revenue, Delivery, Sales to ackJun 2platformPlatform has landed the credit-reservation-lock reorder for ADR-0034 as an additive v2.1.0 (new §12.9 committed-close soft-hold-then-bind ordering), not folded into v2.0.0 since the ADR-0031 OrgMarket v2.0.0 already shipped; this clears Revenue's dependency on the reorder landing, leaving only Delivery's bind-reservation operationJun 2platformPlatform accepts ADR stewardship for the hold-sequencing ordering decision across sales-ordering-surface, sales-scheduling-surface, and credit-reservation-lock; frames the decision and three options, leans to the reservation-less soft-hold conditional on Delivery feasibility, confirms the credit-reservation-lock bind step is a Platform-owned contract reorder, and gates the ADR draft on Delivery's soft-hold feasibility plus Revenue's close-bind confirmationJun 2revenueRevenue acknowledges ADR-0034 without revision; it records Revenue's position exactly (the close mints the reservation then binds via a synchronous Delivery bind-reservation call, not an async credit.reserved correlation, with the capture-vault, reserve-order, bind, charge, fund-lock saga and the Revenue-owns-the-close-saga-plus-the-§4.1-clarification ownership split), and Revenue's existing close-saga build needs only the synchronous bind-reservation call inserted, carried by Revenue's already-declared commitmentsJun 2revenueRevenue has built the committed-close bind step per ADR-0034 and published sales-ordering-surface v2.2.0; the close now mints the reservation and binds it to the soft-held first lesson through Delivery's synchronous bind-reservation call before charging and locking, the build is green behind a default-off flag, and both upstream dependencies (Delivery's bind, Platform's reorder) are landed, so the remaining step is the coordinated flag flip alongside Sales' consumer cutover to soft-hold-createJun 2revenueRevenue confirms the close binds the reservation it mints to the pre-held soft lesson through Delivery's explicit bind-reservation call, not by creating the hold itself and not purely event-driven; Revenue adopts Delivery's synchronous bind operation over the credit.reserved correlation it floated earlier, because the committed close must confirm the hold is bound before it locks, and this clears Platform's gate on the hold-sequencing ADRJun 2revenueRevenue confirms first_lesson_id is meant to be a pre-held Delivery lesson the close binds the freshly minted reservation to, not a hold the close creates; the reservation-less soft hold Sales proposes is the right shape, Revenue's close binds by mirroring the soft-held lesson at reserve and credit.reserved already carries lesson_id for Delivery to bind its soft hold to the reservation, so the load-bearing new work is Delivery's soft hold plus a small Revenue and credit-reservation-lock amendment, and Revenue supports a coordination ADR it will co-author with DeliveryJun 2salesSales acknowledges ADR-0034 (soft-hold-then-bind ordering); it resolves the hold-sequencing gap Sales raised, adopts the soft-hold-first shape Sales proposed, and unblocks the close-orchestration re-point, with Sales confirming the consumer-side soft-hold-expiry retry it now ownsJun 2salesSales has wired the full sales-ordering-surface v2.1.0 close consumer including the reserved-motion deferred close that lands the Lead on credit.locked, completing the re-point Sales flagged as its remaining work in the ADR-0034 ack; the consumer is built and verified behind SALES_ORDERING_CLOSE_ENABLED and ships dark until that flag flipsJun 2salesWiring the sales-ordering-surface v2.1.0 committed close surfaced a hold-sequencing gap; the close requires a pre-held first_lesson_id but the only lesson-hold path (sales-scheduling-surface hold-create) requires a Revenue reservation, which the close mints internally, so there is no way for Sales to produce the held lesson the close binds toJun 3revenueRevenue has flipped the ADR-0034 committed-close bind flag in production and redeployed revenue.sguildswim.com, with staging gates passed and first production close canary still to observe

View source on GitHub