Plan: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/KERTÚJÍTÓK/action-plans/2026-08-08-kertujitok-tts-rescope.md
For each task choose Delegate, Drop, or Save as idea. Add a comment only when the task needs refinement.
Task. Review the brother-built Cloudflare version and produce the evidence needed for a safe migration offer.
Problem solved. The offer cannot claim continuity or low risk before the build, ownership, SEO, forms, tracking, email, backup, and rollback are checked.
Cost of inaction. The proposal may oversell an unverified migration or miss a lead, SEO, DNS, or email blocker.
Benefit. Matt gets a factual scope and risk register for the Loom and proposal.
Done. Exact build, parity evidence, risk register, and recommendation exist. 80/20. Identify the build and top blockers before drafting client claims.
flowchart LR A[Unverified GHL migration] --> B[Check Cloudflare parity and control] --> C[Defensible migration scope]
flowchart TD
S1[Identify branch and staging] --> S2[Compare parity and ownership]
S2 --> S3[Assess SEO email backup and rollback]
S3 --> D{Evidence complete}
D -- no --> S2
D -- yes --> DONE[Migration packet ready]
Task. Make each lead easier for Péter to understand and manage on his phone.
Problem solved. The promised app still needs a clearer overview and lead-management flow.
Cost of inaction. An explicit promise stays open and follow-up remains harder than necessary.
Benefit. Péter can see the reason, message, note, stage, and next action quickly.
Done. Synthetic E2E and responsive QA pass for the staging build. 80/20. Put reason, message, note, and stage on the mobile lead card.
flowchart LR A[Hard to scan leads] --> B[Put key context on the mobile card] --> C[Faster lead follow up]
flowchart TD
S1[Inspect current flow] --> S2[Build staging update]
S2 --> S3[Test fields actions and layouts]
S3 --> D{Required context visible}
D -- no --> S2
D -- yes --> DONE[Staging ready]
Task. Reproduce the client-visible dashboard failure and repair confirmed code defects in staging.
Problem solved. The dashboard is described as broken, but the exact defect is not recorded.
Cost of inaction. The client cannot trust the reporting surface or the reduced monthly service.
Benefit. Péter gets a stable dashboard with truthful source and freshness states.
Done. Defect ledger, fixes, tests, source states, and responsive QA pass. 80/20. Reproduce the failure and restore one trustworthy client view.
flowchart LR A[Dashboard issue unclear] --> B[Reproduce and fix confirmed defects] --> C[Trustworthy client reporting]
flowchart TD
S1[Reproduce client failure] --> S2[Classify code access and data issues]
S2 --> S3[Fix staging defects]
S3 --> S4[Verify metrics tests and layouts]
S4 --> D{Evidence passes}
D -- no --> S2
D -- yes --> DONE[Dashboard ready]
Task. Finalize the commercial terms and draft one persuasive Hungarian migration and monthly-service offer.
Problem solved. The direction exists, but scope, terms, verified claims, and GHL consequences are incomplete.
Cost of inaction. The current arrangement may end without a clear replacement.
Benefit. Matt gets one factual client-ready offer with no hidden commitments.
Done. Approved terms and an UNSENT verified Hungarian proposal exist. 80/20. Lock scope and terms, then produce one short factual email.
flowchart LR A[Current fee ending] --> B[Lock terms and draft offer] --> C[Clear replacement service]
flowchart TD
S1[Read migration evidence] --> S2[Decide commercial terms]
S2 --> S3[Draft Hungarian offer]
S3 --> S4[Verify every claim]
S4 --> D{Terms and evidence approved}
D -- no --> S2
D -- yes --> DONE[Offer ready]
Task. Record a concise walkthrough of the verified Cloudflare setup, benefits, controls, and rollback.
Problem solved. Péter needs a concrete, non-technical explanation before considering migration.
Cost of inaction. The proposal remains abstract and harder to trust.
Benefit. Matt gets a reviewable client-safe explanation.
Done. Playable draft and exact redacted script match the verified evidence. 80/20. Approved script plus a short staging walkthrough.
flowchart LR A[Migration feels abstract] --> B[Show verified setup and rollback] --> C[Client can judge the move]
flowchart TD
S1[Write evidence based script] --> S2[Record verified staging flow]
S2 --> S3[Check claims playback and redaction]
S3 --> D{Recording matches evidence}
D -- no --> S1
D -- yes --> DONE[Loom draft ready]
Task. After explicit final approval, send Péter the exact approved offer and preserve the receipt.
Problem solved. The must-do outcome is incomplete while the offer remains internal.
Cost of inaction. The client receives no replacement offer before the commercial change.
Benefit. Péter receives one reviewed offer and Matt retains auditable proof.
Done. One read-back receipt matches the approved immutable proposal. 80/20. Approve the exact copy and recipient before sending.
flowchart LR A[Approved offer is internal] --> B[Send exact approved version] --> C[Client receives next step]
flowchart TD
S1[Approve immutable copy] --> S2[Send once]
S2 --> S3[Read back receipt]
S3 --> D{Receipt matches approval}
D -- no --> S3
D -- yes --> DONE[Delivery verified]
Task. Request Péter's workbook and examples, then scope one automation concept after permission and files arrive.
Problem solved. The upsell is generic until the real quote and settlement workflow is understood.
Cost of inaction. Matt may propose software that removes useful functions or has unclear value.
Benefit. Péter can evaluate one concrete low-risk automation idea.
Done. Request draft exists and, when inputs arrive, one representative redacted quote works. 80/20. Produce the privacy-safe request and treat missing files as a gate.
flowchart LR A[Upsell lacks source files] --> B[Request workbook then prototype] --> C[Grounded automation option]
flowchart TD
S1[Draft workbook request] --> D1{Files and permission received}
D1 -- no --> WAIT[Report input gate]
D1 -- yes --> S2[Map real workflow]
S2 --> S3[Prototype one quote and improvement]
S3 --> D2{Representative quote works}
D2 -- no --> S2
D2 -- yes --> DONE[Optional scope ready]
Task. Classify the earlier plan's work and preserve it as a source-linked future-ideas registry.
Problem solved. Old work should stop driving current scope without losing evidence or opportunities.
Cost of inaction. Future agents may repeat work or mistake proposals for commitments.
Benefit. The active scope stays small while prior context remains discoverable.
Done. Approved registry and exact CRM placement receipt exist. 80/20. Produce the complete local registry without external writes.
flowchart LR A[Old tasks still compete] --> B[Classify and park with links] --> C[Focused scope with preserved context]
flowchart TD
S1[Classify prior tasks] --> S2[Build source linked registry]
S2 --> S3[Get Matt approval]
S3 --> S4[Update exact CRM reference area]
S4 --> D{Read back matches approval}
D -- no --> S4
D -- yes --> DONE[Parked registry verified]