Test 190

Anna sent her Compass evidence pass. I want this turned into a short addendum for Friday, with the definitions/source/date/caveat attached so the prompts don't read like clean product metrics. Forwarding her table: Renewal-risk / admin-friction prompt - Action trigger: account-owner follow-up when an account has renewal-risk context plus documented admin friction. - Evidence has to include the account-thread source, date, owner, and caveat. - Evidence sources here: Sarah's Evergreen annual-account notes and Acme live-only notes. - Caveats: single-account notes are not repeatability proof; stale account-source timing has to be called out; this should not become a score or dashboard. Post-first-live-sync expansion prompt - Action trigger: an account-owner expansion-prep question only after first live sync is actually live and teammate-invite/admin-role basics are visible. - Evidence sources: activation events and account-thread notes. - Caveats: sample/preview behavior is excluded; source timing travels with the prompt; this does not imply a customer is ready to expand. Anna's read: usable for an operating review if each prompt carries definition, evidence source, date, and caveat. Not clean customer-facing proof. Make a Compass April evidence-matrix addendum in bullets with each prompt's action trigger, evidence source, and caveats.

Sarah sent the account-thread evidence. I want a separate addendum that keeps the Evergreen/Acme boundary clean and marks the thin notes as thin. Forwarding Sarah's notes: Evergreen Bank - Account-thread evidence is annual-account current-state only. - Safe evidence includes the annual Mercury Growth account context, shipped SAML rotation path, visible invite/source/admin audit lookup support, workspace-admin support route, and the recently verified basic invited-teammate/source-owner cues in the current activation path. - Caveat: clean evidence, but still a single annual account. Do not turn it into repeatable customer-growth proof. Acme - Evidence stays live-only review of Acme's own account-health, reliability, and renewal-risk signals. - No Evergreen-derived examples, screenshots, written Mercury packets, or customer-specific briefing materials should go out. - Two Acme notes are too thin because the owner/source and date are unclear; exclude them or caveat them. - The live review produced clarification questions for the account owner, not customer action. Sarah's read: the prompt work is improving internal account-thread hygiene and prep questions, not yet changing customer behavior. Create an account-thread addendum for the Compass review that separates Evergreen, Acme, excluded/thin evidence, and the behavior-change read.

Leo sent the last seam note for Friday. I want this phrased as a clean risk/evidence line, not proof language. Forwarding Leo: - The renewal-risk/admin-friction prompt now carries source-recency handling well enough for continued owner-group use. - When account-thread timing is close or source ownership is unclear, the prompt should show the evidence date and caveat. - The post-first-live-sync prompt is safe for owner-group review when the first_live_sync_completed event is present and sample/preview behavior is excluded. - Caveat: this does not justify broader exposure, customer-facing claims, or a dashboard-style surface. - Jake should keep implementation prompt-level unless the review explicitly changes scope. Draft the Leo section as a concise risk/evidence line for the Apr 25 review.

Leo sent the last seam note for Friday. I want this phrased as a clean risk/evidence line, not proof language. Forwarding Leo: - The renewal-risk/admin-friction prompt now carries source-recency handling well enough for continued owner-group use. - When account-thread timing is close or source ownership is unclear, the prompt should show the evidence date and caveat. - The post-first-live-sync prompt is safe for owner-group review when the first_live_sync_completed event is present and sample/preview behavior is excluded. - Caveat: this does not justify broader exposure, customer-facing claims, or a dashboard-style surface. - Jake should keep implementation prompt-level unless the review explicitly changes scope. Draft the Leo section as a concise risk/evidence line for the Apr 25 review.