LL2 · LLL review board

Balionline · focused recovery and completion

FULL CONTRACT · REVIEW ONLY

LL2 replacement plan ready for review. Previous executor is PAUSED and has released ownership. No fresh executor has launched.

Execution: not launchedRun: analit-recovery-plan-20261001Updated: 2026-10-01T09:58:17.690935+00:00

Old executor paused · replacement plan ready for review

Read the critique below, inspect the seven deliverable cards, then review the worker split. No replacement executor has launched. All original outcomes are retained.

The reported missing enquiry was recovered as CRM card 1963 with its original partner. Final API evidence confirms one matching card, original source and submission facts, and no recovery email. Native CRM display remains unverified. Background authentication activity is disabled and worker ownership released.

What the previous run achieved, and what changes now

Keep: approved website and chat fixes, the automatic source-link workaround, working mapping, and the deployed missing-card/readability repair. Reuse valid evidence for unchanged work.

Change: prioritize a complete normal visitor journey. Extensive individual and CAPTCHA-exception tests did not yet prove every required live outcome. Assign one owner for live test traffic and clean finished synthetic records after each batch.

Still open: protected visitor successes, remaining placements, selected-address newsletter activation, settled email-import behavior, measurement/deduplication, and the second reported incident's identity. The historical 16/32 count is a verification checkpoint, not a percentage of code complete.

Why the reported incidents matter

The September duplicate incident and the October missing-card incident have different causes. The earlier bridge created a new ID for repeated callbacks, and an email-import route could add another record. The missing enquiry had reached CRM, later became unavailable, and processing kept targeting its stale ID. The last executor repaired that path and recovered the identified enquiry. Preserve the repair and verify its remaining native display and lifecycle outcomes.

Generated metadata had also been reused as the customer question and appended again. The deployed normalization repair now has independent offline tests and a once-only description in the recovered record. Do not claim this proves every form family or an earlier character-encoding failure.

0 / 38criteria verified

Current path to the deliverables

CURRENT STATE

Current state

Previous executor paused at 10:03 UTC on 1 October. The final receipt retains 16/32 accepted outcomes. Since the earlier board snapshot, the reported real enquiry was recovered as CRM card1963 with its original partner, exact source and once-only description, verified through API. Native CRM rendering and the remaining normal visitor, newsletter, importer and measurement proof remain open.

INPUTS

Available inputs

  • Existing requirements · confirmed — All original U01–U14 and M01–M18 outcomes are preserved, reorganized by customer-visible result.
  • Missing-lead investigation · confirmed — Original data survives. Verify any completed recovery and repair stale-card handling and repeated metadata.
  • Test cleanup · confirmed — Matt allows necessary tests, including visible data, but asks to delete exact test leads promptly once no longer needed.
DESIRED STATE

Desired state

Every genuine enquiry is usable once in CRM with the correct details and partner. Newsletter choice works. The approved website stays intact. Tests prove the normal path, and finished test data is removed.

OBSERVABLE DELIVERABLES

Deliverables

  • Recover and reconcile affected real enquiries.
  • Show correct answers, source URL and form identity in CRM.
  • Prevent duplicate requests without losing genuinely new requests.
  • Complete newsletter membership and consent behavior.
  • Complete protected visitor submissions and success tracking.
  • Retain the approved website and fix only demonstrated regressions.
  • Remove finished test leads and leave clear evidence and an unsent client reply.
Deliverable details

1 · Account for every affected real enquiry

Current problem: The reported missing enquiry is now recovered as card1963 and verified by API. Native CRM rendering and other affected-record dispositions still need reconciliation.

Proposed change: Verify that recovery first, repair missing-card handling, and reconcile other identified affected records without creating duplicates.

Visible at: QlickCRM → Ajánlatkérések, the linked Partner, and the private recovery ledger.

Representative test: Open the recovered enquiry and compare it with the preserved original submission.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/3 verified)

Requirements and verification

The reported real enquiry formerly ANA-1947 is available once in Ajánlatkérések with its original answers, source, timestamp, consent facts and partner. Any recovery already completed by the paused executor is preserved.

Verification: Read the pause/recovery receipt, then correlate original UUID, replacement or forwarded card, native fields and partner. Confirm no extra notification or changed consent date. Record exact before/after IDs privately.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

A job whose CRM card disappears has an explicit recoverable outcome. It does not retry the missing ID forever, silently lose answers, or automatically resurrect intentionally deleted cards.

Verification: Test missing-object and HTTP-200-with-error-body responses offline, then one labelled controlled lifecycle if needed. Check retained original payload, bounded retry/result classification and duplicate-aware recovery. Normal new enquiries still complete.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

All identified affected historic enquiries have a per-record disposition: present and correct, recovered once, intentionally removed, or unknown with a precise missing input. ANA-1946 is a candidate, not an assumed second reported incident.

Verification: Reconcile retained jobs, original payloads, current/archived CRM results and client-forwarded cards. Enumerate every result page explicitly. Do not equate recorded completion with current existence or a 404 with proof of who deleted a card. Never replay a real visitor submission.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

2 · Make each CRM enquiry complete and readable

Current problem: Staff have seen repeated technical blocks and confusing enquiry types. Source URLs need the established automatic workaround.

Proposed change: Keep separate labelled answers, the actual landing URL and hero-form/oldalsó-form/alsó-form. Keep the customer question separate from technical metadata.

Visible at: Opened Ajánlatkérések card, its list title, Partner and received notification.

Representative test: Submit a general hero enquiry and a specific trip enquiry, then read their cards.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/12 verified)

Requirements and verification

M01 · The inventory lists each live page/form placement with URL, CF7 ID, collected fields, real available values and destination. Labels are hero-form, oldalsó-form or alsó-form only where those placements actually exist. Chat has its own truthful label.

Verification: Refresh the existing 23-placement inventory only where changed. Include all routes creating enquiries and explain exclusions. Do not build a nonexistent side form merely to satisfy a test fixture.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M02 · A general enquiry from the collection hero appears in QlickCRM → Ajánlatkérések with its actual submission-page URL in “Forrásoldal URL-je” and exactly “hero-form” in “Űrlap helye”.

Verification: Submit from the live hero, reopen the CRM card and compare the visible fields with website state and provider readback.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M03 · Every tested real side/bottom form shows its own page and exact placement. A campaign-tagged submission preserves the complete URL, including normal query separators, as readable, copyable and usable data on the reopened CRM card. Implement an automatic workaround if the current writer corrupts it.

Verification: Test an existing placement with ?utm_source=lllqa&utm_campaign=crm-forras plus an encoded query-value fixture. Compare captured URL, saved source, reopened field, copied value and link target. Verify all query keys/values survive. Distinguish harmless API/HTML serialization from literal corruption in the visible or copied URL. A shortened URL, lost query, manual per-lead edit or broken %26 separator is not a pass.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M04 · Submissions from different pages or placements keep their own URL and form label, even when they share a technical form. A later submission never overwrites an earlier request’s source.

Verification: Use two actual locations of a shared form, or two different forms if none is shared. Reopen both records. The coverage matrix contains a successful website-origin source-mapping result for every active placement.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M05 · A hero enquiry with “2027. július közepe”, 9-10 nights and 2 passengers shows “Általános érdeklődés”, “Kiválasztott út: Nincs kiválasztva”, and those separate period/night/passenger values. Its title and received notification identify a general enquiry, not an invented specific trip. The separate 14+ case retains 14+.

Verification: Compare filled website, reopened CRM card, provider values and delivered QA notification. Keep period and nights separate.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M06 · A trip-specific enquiry shows the actual selected or clearly indicated trip name and approved departure date/range. It is labelled “Konkrét csoportos út”. General chat does not become trip-specific just because it appears on a trip page.

Verification: Submit from a real trip page. Compare the approved trip source, visible form, CRM and notification. If there is no exact approved date, show the verified text or “Nincs megadva”, never invent a date.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M07 · A year-only or flexible-period enquiry keeps exactly that meaning in the form and CRM. Staff can see the entered text even when a technical date field is empty. No invented day or 1970 date is presented as the requested travel date.

Verification: Submit year-only and flexible cases. Check the opened card and raw values separately from any formatted API defaults.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M08 · Individual, wedding/honeymoon and company requests each show their correct enquiry type and supplied period in the CRM card and delivered notification. An individual request is not headed “Csoportos Ajánlatkérés”.

Verification: Submit distinct website examples for all three form types and compare type, period and collected fields across website, CRM and QA inbox.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M09 · The Ajánlatkérések list has a readable title. On the opened card staff can read separately labelled source URL, placement, type, period, nights, traveller type, passenger count, budget with its Ft/fő unit, accommodation, experiences and full message. They do not need to search inside an HTML email.

Verification: Submit distinct valid values the form actually supports, then compare each on the opened card and provider readback. Use a native supported field/description arrangement if needed. Technical IDs remain searchable without dominating the title.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M10 · Unasked or unanswered fields are empty or clearly “Nem megadott” / “Nem kért”. Other submitted values remain intact. No fabricated zero, unrelated test value or false date appears as a client preference.

Verification: Use a form that does not ask budget or nights. Compare the opened card and raw data. Empty versus null on unused fields is not itself a business defect.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M11 · A new requester becomes a partner with the supplied name, email and phone. A later request links to the same appropriate partner while both requests retain their own trip data. Empty values do not erase useful existing partner details.

Verification: Submit first and subsequent requests with changed travel details. Compare partner fields, request links and the independently retained request values in CRM and provider readback.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

The actual customer question appears once as Kérdés, kérés. Generated metadata is not copied into that answer. Each travel answer and the full source link are readable once in the CRM description and notification.

Verification: Test blank question, a real question and legacy generated Uzenet input. Compare rendered notification and reopened CRM card. Check Unicode and exact source parameters. Distinguish repetition from an unproved encoding fault.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

3 · One submission, one request and one notification

Current problem: The September 28 incident involved repeated form callbacks plus a separate email-import path. The source fix exists, but lifecycle proof remains incomplete.

Proposed change: Verify the stable submission ID and pre-mail claim, safe retries, and importer exclusion. Preserve intentionally new submissions from the same person.

Visible at: CRM enquiry count, partner links, received QA inbox messages and processing log.

Representative test: Double-click once, retry that submission, then intentionally submit again with identical answers.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/3 verified)

Requirements and verification

M12 · One logical website submission creates one actionable CRM request and one complete notification in an accessible test inbox. Related email processing does not create a second actionable enquiry. Production notification routing is restored after testing.

Verification: Use a labelled QA address/submission ID, inspect the received email including headers and count CRM records after processing settles. Temporarily reroute only synthetic QA notifications to a confirmed readable inbox. Trace any CRM email-import branch so a changed recipient does not silently bypass the suspected duplicate path. Record the restored production recipient/configuration. Direct access to the production inbox is not a prerequisite under Matt’s new instruction.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M13 · Double-clicks, network retry and background retry of the same logical submission each leave one CRM request and one complete received notification. A recoverable delivery failure is retried without losing the request.

Verification: Test the three cases separately with actual website events and controlled fault/retry where needed. Include double-clicks that would otherwise create different UUIDs. Count at the documented completed processing/retry state, not an arbitrary early moment.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M14 · Two deliberately new submissions from the same person create two requests and two notifications linked to one partner. This also holds when the two new submissions contain identical answers.

Verification: Start fresh submission events twice, first with different travel details and then with identical content. Compare separate submission IDs, CRM cards, partner links and received QA messages. Do not deduplicate by email or content alone.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

4 · Newsletter choice works for the selected address

Current problem: Native activation and selected-address behavior were not fully demonstrated. Authentication experiments caused client distractions.

Proposed change: Finish the simplest maintainable existing integration. Reuse working access, preserve original consent and selected email, and verify membership without sending a campaign.

Visible at: QlickCRM Marketing → Balionline weboldal feliratkozók and the matching partner email detail.

Representative test: New/repeat subscriber, checked/unchecked quote, existing subscriber with unchecked quote and a multi-email partner.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/1 verified)

Requirements and verification

M16 · A website newsletter sign-up appears once in QlickCRM Marketing → “Balionline weboldal feliratkozók”. Repeat sign-up does not duplicate it. A quote-form newsletter checkbox follows the person’s choice. Leaving it empty does not create a subscription or remove a pre-existing one.

Verification: Test new and existing subscriber addresses, quote opt-in checked and unchecked, and an existing subscriber submitting an unchecked quote. Compare website response, list membership and provider readback. Include restored protected newsletter success. Send no newsletter campaign. Preserve held original consent events and verify the selected integration operates after test agents stop. Do not silently restart the disabled authentication consumer.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

5 · Prove the real visitor journey and measurement

Current problem: Controlled test submissions prove parts of the integration. They do not prove the restored protected visitor path or every active placement.

Proposed change: Use a minimal shared test matrix for actual placements and distinct processing paths, then verify successful and rejected submissions, exact restoration and one success event.

Visible at: Live form steps/success state, CRM card, QA inbox and existing analytics network/provider events.

Representative test: Complete a real protected quote, newsletter and separately handled chat path, with mobile/desktop behavior and invalid-token rejection.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/6 verified)

Requirements and verification

U05 · Step 1 has the three experience choices, Kikkel utaznál?, and native dropdowns for Utasok száma and Balin töltött éjszakák. Passengers are exact integers 1–99 with a required empty “Válassz” start. Night options are 7-8, 9-10, 10-14 and 14+. Values survive Back/Next. Two passengers stay 2 and ranges remain ranges in CRM and notification.

Verification: Inspect selects and options. Test empty passenger validation and step retention. Submit 9-10 and 14+ cases from the website, then compare CRM and delivered QA email. Never infer a passenger count or turn a range into an invented exact number.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U06 · Step 2 contains current seasons, an optional more precise period or flexibility, accommodation, and a flight-inclusive budget in Ft/fő with “*a repülőjeggyel együtt”. Preserve the meeting budget range 800 000–1 600 000, step 50 000 and initial 1 200 000.

Verification: Choose a valid current season, “2027. július közepe”, 4–5-star accommodation and 1 200 000 Ft/fő. Check Back/Next, displayed amount and exact CRM/email values. Generate future seasons appropriately, do not freeze all options to 2027.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U10 · Site-wide cookie banners, settings buttons and preference dialogs remain temporarily absent. All measurement-consent gates remain temporarily disabled until Matt chooses to restore them. Existing page-view and successful-submit events run without a cookie click and without duplicates. “Igények összegzése” is absent. Form privacy, newsletter opt-in and CAPTCHA retain their own behavior.

Verification: Check fresh, previously accepting and previously rejecting states across distinct page templates. Inspect relevant frontend and existing server measurement paths, network/provider events, and one real successful form event. Preserve exact backups and re-enable instructions. Do not invent visitor consent or automatically turn cookie gating back on.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U11 · Missing or invalid required name/email/phone produces clear validation. A valid website submission shows actual success and transfers every form value, including Kérdés, kérés:, to the CRM card and one received notification. There is no demo alert.

Verification: Run invalid and valid website cases, correlate submission ID with CRM readback and accessible QA inbox, and check for JavaScript errors. Record whether CAPTCHA was enabled or temporarily disabled.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M15 · The live website-to-CRM-to-notification path works for every actual form placement, with correct source, type, period, supplied values and partner link. Both desktop and mobile form behavior are verified. After any CAPTCHA exception is removed, successful protected visitor submissions prove each distinct processing path still works.

Verification: Use the existing placement matrix and minimum distinct fixtures that cover its branches. Each placement gets a website-origin submission result. Exercise each form family on desktop and mobile. Controlled CAPTCHA-off runs may prove mapping and delivery, clearly labelled. Then prove normal protected success for each distinct submission pipeline, including quote and newsletter, plus chat if separately handled. Direct CRM inserts do not replace website-origin tests. Do not repeat identical full tests solely to increase a count.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M17 · After tests, every temporary CAPTCHA exception is removed and the original protection is active. Missing and invalid tokens are rejected for quote and newsletter routes with no CRM record, subscription or notification created.

Verification: Compare restored files/configuration with exact backups, run both negative cases against the server, and correlate CRM/inbox counts. Pair with protected positive tests in M15/M16. Never label an exception-window success as normal protected success.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

6 · Preserve the approved website and verified fixes

Current problem: The prior run produced substantial accepted visual work. Rebuilding it would add regression risk and delay the lead-delivery work.

Proposed change: Carry forward valid evidence for unchanged areas. Fix only actual remaining defects and run the required screenshot/fix/fresh-QA loop after a website deployment.

Visible at: Collection hero/form, trip page, chat motion and the named earlier content fixes.

Representative test: Compare the approved layout at desktop/mobile and 1019×1164, including dropdowns, fonts, CTAs and chat animation.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/10 verified)

Requirements and verification

U01 · On the live collection hero, show “CSOPORTOS UTAK ÉS SZEMÉLYES TERVEZÉS”, H1 “Válassz csoportos utat, vagy kérj saját útitervet.” with “saját útitervet.” in orange, and card title “Add meg az igényeidet, és keresünk az opciókkal!”. Make the card title smaller and legible without shrinking the H1.

Verification: Check exact DOM text and loaded style at 1440×1000, 1085×1174, 1019×1164 and 390×844. Compare the card title with the rejected version and retain usable postdeployment images.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U02 · “ELŐRE MEGTERVEZETT UTAK” reaches the trip list. “EGYEDI ÚTITERVET KÉREK” reaches and focuses the hero form. Under them show “Átbeszéljük az elképzeléseidet, és személyre szabott tervet adunk a kívánt időpontra, tempóra és programokra.”

Verification: Activate both controls by mouse and keyboard on the live page and inspect the destinations and exact supporting copy.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U03 · Restore the original hero background, layers, position and responsive spacing. At two-column widths the text and form start together, within 2 CSS pixels. At 1019×1164 the H1 and supporting paragraph align left with the CTA column. Remove the newly introduced empty space below the content. Mobile has a logical stacked layout and no horizontal overflow.

Verification: Compare with the actual pre-change source, not the rejected screenshot. Record restored values, computed padding/background/alignment and postdeployment views at the four U01 sizes.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U04 · Use the existing Protest Riot heading style for the H1, card title and “Milyen élményeket keresel?”. Body and fields use existing Open Sans. Keep Poppins only in its existing roles. TOVÁBB and submit buttons match the main hero CTA in font, color, height, padding, corners and interaction style.

Verification: Check loaded fonts, computed button styles, hover/focus and working controls across all three steps. Check two untouched sections for regression. Different button widths due to wording are acceptable.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U07 · The paragraph beginning “Általában legalább 7 éj / 8 nap Balin” and its leftover blank space are absent. The Bali-night label remains clear.

Verification: Inspect steps 1 and 2 and check the removed text is absent from the form DOM.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U08 · Step 3 has no “Elérhetőségek” heading. Name occupies a full row, E-mail and Telefonszám are side by side on desktop and stacked on mobile, and “Kérdés, kérés:” is a fourth, optional full-row field.

Verification: Check at 1440, 1085, 808 and 390 CSS pixels. Type in the question, move Back/Next and verify retention. An empty question must not block submission.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U09 · The existing CAPTCHA and required form privacy controls fit fully inside the white card and remain usable without clipping or page overflow.

Verification: Read the actual existing CAPTCHA provider and mode. Inspect step 3 at the U08 widths. If that actual integration is invisible, document this fact rather than adding a new widget. Positive and negative functioning is verified under M15–M17.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U12 · The live collection page remains available at its public URL and displays the working three-step form. Every production change has a narrow backup, provider readback and practical restore path.

Verification: Fresh anonymous HTTP 200, postdeployment behavior, exact changed-source readback and hashes. Use the proven WordPress code/provider route. A reversible fixture can verify rollback logic without needlessly rolling back healthy production.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U13 · All earlier and latest UI annotations have an explicit result on this board. Material visual defects are fixed and checked again after deployment.

Verification: Run the required Luna section screenshot/fix/fresh-QA loop for changed website areas. Include desktop, mobile and 1019×1164. Reuse valid evidence for untouched areas. U14 needs motion proof and U10 needs measurement proof, not only still images.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

U14 · On the collection and 10-night trip pages, the chat panel grows from its button with the original morph/grow opening and closing motion, including the actual header and bottom-right variants. Chat remains usable.

Verification: Compare original CSS/JS and capture a short live recording or timestamped sequence of opening and closing. Check message delivery through the controlled QA route. Keep existing reduced-motion behavior.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

7 · Clean test data and deliver an honest final handoff

Current problem: Test entries and login requests distracted staff. Several partial results were hard to distinguish from full completion.

Proposed change: Clean exact synthetic records promptly, preserve recovery, restore temporary routing and CAPTCHA settings, and reconcile every original outcome plus the new incident fixes.

Visible at: Client CRM work queue, notification inbox, this board and final handoff.

Representative test: After a completed test batch, confirm fixtures are gone and real records remain. At completion reconcile all checks with evidence.

Requirements, verification, and evidence (0/3 verified)

Requirements and verification

Every known synthetic QA lead created by this run or identified in prior run ledgers is deleted from active CRM work as soon as its evidence is captured and it is no longer needed. Real or uncertain leads are preserved.

Verification: Use an exact UUID/object/contact ledger, snapshot records and verify a practical restore route before deletion. After each batch, query active and archived records and related subscription jobs. Check no retry/import process recreates deleted fixtures. Do not delete by name/email substring or blanket date ranges. Reused real partners remain untouched.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

Tests cause the minimum client distraction needed for credible proof. Synthetic email reaches an accessible QA inbox, task-owned authentication loops stay stopped, and production notification routing is restored.

Verification: Prepare the smallest fixture matrix covering all remaining branches. Reuse each fixture across several criteria, clean each completed batch, inspect received headers and the actual importer path, and confirm no unintended client or lead sends. Do not remove essential end-to-end tests merely to keep counts low.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

M18 · The final board and concise handoff distinguish completed, failed and untested outcomes, with usable evidence. Recover proven missing data on the identified historic enquiries. Keep unavailable values “Nincs megadva” with a precise loss list. Preserve flight cards, trip order, budget/night controls and the April 5–19 itinerary image fix. Provide an unsent client reply and exact restoration instructions.

Verification: Reconcile all criteria, fixture IDs and evidence. Check only the identified historic records against recoverable originals with rollback. Recheck the named regressions and existing success-measurement event. Include production notification routing restored, CAPTCHA restored, and cookie/measurement gating intentionally still off until Matt requests re-enable. No client message is sent.

Evidence and screenshots

Evidence pending; this criterion is not verified.

Resources, tools, outputs and review context

Resources

  • /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-completion-ll2-20260930 contains the original contract, implementation, provider helper, placement inventory, prior evidence and pause receipt. Read completed relevant reports, not the full transcript again.
  • /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-recovery-plan-20261001/session.gist.md gives the extracted dialogue history with provenance and limits.
  • /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-missing-leads-investigation-20261001/report.md and its linked private-safe index explain the original missing-card and readability findings.
  • /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-unified-lll-20260929/meeting-hero-reference.html preserves the approved hero reference.
  • /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-recovery-plan-20261001/orchestration-plan.md defines worker boundaries, execution order and release acceptance.

Tools

  • Invoke launch-agent before each child, look-for-access before private service work, am-i-blocked before escalation, comment-html-review-host for this board, and required Luna postdeployment visual QA for website changes.

Output: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-recovery-plan-20261001

Report: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/Analit/outputs/analit-recovery-plan-20261001/executor-handoff.md

Comments read: 2026-10-01T09:56:04.298511+00:00; previous board returned zero stored comments.

Shared constraints and sources
  • Prepare the full plan now. A later explicit Launch hands it to a fresh orchestrator. The paused old executor must release live-write ownership before that launch. · Source: Current request invokes LL2 and says the new plan will be given to a fresh agent; LL2 Prepare/review/Launch flow.
  • At launch use one fresh orchestrator, with multiple gpt-6.1-sol medium subagents via launch-agent. Each receives a self-contained /goal, exact ownership, verification and unique report path. No progress polling or transcript supervision. · Source: Current user request for multiple Sol 6.1 Medium subagents and AGENTS.md delegation rules.
  • The orchestrator is the only production integration/deployment owner. Workers prepare independent patches and tests in separate directories. Shared bridge edits are integrated serially. One coordinator owns live QA, fixture creation and cleanup. · Source: Planning choice to prevent concurrent writes and duplicate test traffic, not an additional approval gate.
  • Retain current proven fixes and useful evidence. Refresh only evidence affected by changed code, restored configuration or uncertain provider state. All planned checks start unchecked to avoid claiming current acceptance from a historical status count. · Source: User: more effective execution, complete all outcomes properly.
  • Use clearly labelled minimal QA batches. Route only synthetic test notifications to an accessible inbox when possible. Cover the actual importer path. Do not generate repeated login/MFA requests or operate unattended authentication retry loops. · Source: Current test-data cleanup request and earlier client-distraction report.
  • Delete only exact synthetic fixtures after proof capture and when no longer needed. Preserve a narrow backup and verified practical restore path. Never delete real or ambiguous leads or shared real partners. Restore task-only subscriptions and stop fixture retries before cleanup. · Source: Current user explicitly requests deleting test leads; AGENTS.md irreversible-deletion exception.
  • Preserve original customer UUID, timestamps, answers and consent. Do not replay genuine submissions, refresh consent or auto-resurrect intentionally discarded cards. Keep all customer data and transcripts private. · Source: Investigation recovery requirements and verified client facts.
  • Prefer existing API/code/provider access. Use browser where necessary for visitor and native display evidence. CAPTCHA temporary disablement is authorized for narrow tests with exact restoration, positive normal-path and negative server proof. Runtime action-time confirmation rules still apply. · Source: Matt API-first and CAPTCHA instructions; tool runtime requirements.
  • Cookie UI and measurement-consent gates remain intentionally OFF until Matt asks to restore them. Form privacy, newsletter choices and restored CAPTCHA retain their own behavior. Add no security layers. · Source: Matt explicit annotations and AGENTS.md.
  • No client/lead messages, marketing campaigns or vendor-support sends. Internal labelled QA notifications are allowed. Client handoff is draft-only. Respect remaining shared USD15 spend, with no per-worker reset. · Source: AGENTS.md and existing explicit no-send scope.
  • Preserve prices, trip facts, flights, ordering and April itinerary-image fix. Facebook repair and new advisory content awaiting client materials remain outside this run. · Source: Existing approved scope.
  • Keep the stable public board free of private data. Do not auto-open previews. Close task browser tabs. Use required Luna visual QA for client-page deployments, then one parent handoff. · Source: Current AGENTS.md.

Preview (illustrative, not test proof)

Illustrative trigger → action → outcome · not test proof

TRIGGER

Preserved evidence

Paused run, original data and requirements

ACTION

Repair distinct causes

Separate workers, one live-write owner

HANDOFF

Verify real journeys

CRM, notification and newsletter proof

OUTCOME

Clean test data

Usable client workflow and truthful handoff

How the fresh team will execute

One fresh orchestrator coordinates multiple Sol 6.1 Medium subagents using launch-agent. Three preparation workers can run in parallel. Shared production changes are integrated in order, then one independent verifier owns live tests.

OwnerWorkBoundary
A · EnquiriesCRM reliability, readable answers, duplicates and partner linksLocal candidate patch and tests. Preserve the deployed recovery.
B · NewsletterSelected-address activation and consent lineageSeparate candidate. No campaign or unattended login loop.
C · Test planningReuse valid evidence, minimal placement matrix, exact fixture ledgerRead-only preparation. No competing submissions.
OrchestratorIntegrate, deploy and coordinate recoverySingle production-write owner.
D · Final verificationReal visitor paths, CRM/email/measurement proof and cleanupFresh agent after integration. Single live-QA owner.

Necessary tests, prompt cleanup

Use each fixture to prove several requirements. After its evidence is captured and it is no longer needed, delete the exact synthetic records with a verified restore route. Prevent retry/import processes from recreating them. Real and uncertain leads are preserved. Additional tests remain allowed whenever they are needed to prove the outcome.

Send synthetic notifications to an accessible test inbox when possible, verify the actual importer route, and restore production routing. Never redirect genuine enquiries or suppress essential delivery. Keep task authentication loops disabled.

Next: review this contract, then send Launch to start the fresh orchestrator. Preparation has not resumed production work.