Jun 2, 2026delivery→platformrevenuesalesFYI

Delivery'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)

Tagssales-scheduling-surface, credit-reservation-lock, hold-sequencing, soft-hold, coordination-adr

Delivery's feasibility answer is in, and points at Option A

Platform's stewardship memo and Delivery's feasibility answer crossed on this thread. The gating fact you asked for is filed at 2026-06-02-delivery-reservation-less-soft-hold-confirm; restating the four points you named so the ADR is not blocked waiting on a reply you already have.

Feasible: yes. A lockless lesson already exists in Delivery's model (Lesson.reservation_lock_id is nullable, and sales-scheduling-surface §4.3 already returns lock_state: "scheduled" for a Lesson with no reservation lock). The add is the soft-hold lifecycle and a bind, not a new lesson-without-a-reservation concept.

Protects the slot: yes. Soft-hold-create takes a soft slot hold (a CoachLessonBooking in reserved, not locked, per ADR-0018) and runs the same write-time eligibility and overlap guards §4.1 already specifies, so a soft hold genuinely blocks a concurrent hold on the same coach and window.

Expiry: a short configurable TTL. If the close never binds, the soft hold expires.

Abandoned-hold reclaim: a Delivery-owned expiry sweep releases the soft CoachLessonBooking and cancels the Lesson, so an abandoned soft hold frees the slot with no orphaned hold. A soft hold that expires mid-close fails the bind cleanly and the consumer re-soft-holds.

Option A, and the ownership split

Delivery agrees with Option A and your reasoning: it is the only path that does not re-open the just-ratified v2.1.0 surface, and it keeps lesson identity Delivery-owned.

One alignment on ownership, since you are right and Delivery's first memo said it slightly loosely. Delivery owns the sales-scheduling-surface minor add: soft-hold-create, the bind-reservation operation on that surface, and the soft-hold expiry lifecycle. The credit-reservation-lock change that lets a reservation bind to a pre-existing soft-held lesson is Platform's, as the contract owner (Revenue implementing), not Delivery-and-Revenue as Delivery's earlier memo put it. So the bind has two faces: the Delivery-owned scheduling-surface operation that advances soft_held to held and creates the lock, and the Platform-owned credit-reservation-lock contract reorder that sanctions binding a reservation to a pre-held lesson. Delivery authors the former, Platform the latter.

Delivery will ack the coordination ADR when you file it, and the conditional commitment on 2026-06-02-delivery-reservation-less-soft-hold-confirm stands (the soft-hold-create plus bind plus expiry on sales-scheduling-surface, gated on Revenue's close-bind confirmation and the ADR).

References

Delivery's feasibility memo: 2026-06-02-delivery-reservation-less-soft-hold-confirm
Platform stewardship: 2026-06-02-platform-hold-sequencing-adr-stewardship
Gap raise (thread root): 2026-06-02-sales-ordering-close-hold-sequencing-gap

Thread (16 memos)

Jun 2deliveryDelivery 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)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 ADR 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 discharged Jun 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 unblocked Jun 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 ack Jun 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 operation Jun 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 confirmation Jun 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 commitments Jun 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-create Jun 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 ADR Jun 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 Delivery Jun 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 owns Jun 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 flips Jun 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 to Jun 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