Authored fictional workload. Relevance is by construction: the topic labels and required answer sources are frozen before runs. Topic relevance: 55.6% of sections. 59,886 characters.
Baseline: openai/gpt-6-luna. Foreman: openai/gpt-6-luna + anthropic/claude-opus-5. This compares the complete product, including planning and independent review. The planner receives a compact document index; workers receive selected sections verbatim. All calls count toward total input tokens and estimated cost.
Model mappings and catalog prices captured 2026-10-08T21:02:01.610021+00:00. Prices below are USD per million tokens; measured costs use reported usage and applicable cached-token pricing.
| Gateway ID | Upstream ID | Input | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| openai/gpt-6-luna | gpt-6-luna | $0.1 | $0.5 |
| anthropic/claude-opus-5 | claude-opus-5 | $5 | $25 |
SHA-256: 7a0a008731e8806d114d9fca1b7b4865b3cb08db21b3ca75bc45d2e80bf62eb8
Not run: full matrix gated on successful two-arm smoke.
[]
Run one Foreman task with your connected provider keys. Maximum mission spend: $1. This live sample does not change the published benchmark results.
Write a regex validating an ISO 8601 calendar date and explain each component.
Frozen key: "Correct pattern with anchors and month/day ranges. FAIL if any Open Arbor detail appears."
Required source: General knowledge; no workspace details
What is the default joint-crediting setting for a new household, and why does it catch people out?
Frozen key: ["off"]
Required source: Soft Credit Rules
A board member asks why the donor recognition list total doesn't match total raised. Explain.
Frozen key: ["hard","soft"]
Required source: Soft Credit Rules; Reporting Pack — Monthly
What lapse window does the monthly board pack use?
Frozen key: "13"
Required source: Reporting Pack — Monthly
| Section | Topic relevant |
|---|---|
| Donor Records — Data Model | No |
| Soft Credit Rules | Yes |
| Acknowledgment Workflow | Yes |
| Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes | No |
| Reporting Pack — Monthly | Yes |
| Data Hygiene — Standing Issues | No |
| Migration Notes — Legacy System | Yes |
| Scratch — database admin | No |
| Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks | Yes |
# Open Arbor — Internal Workspace Memory > **Corpus 05.** Topic relevance: **5/9 sections (55.6%)**. Full pre-run labels are in corpus-manifest.json. > Fictional organization. No real organization, person, or donor is depicted. --- ## DOC: Donor Records — Data Model Open Arbor tracks about 14,000 donor records. Small by sector standards, large enough that the spreadsheet era ended badly. Core entities: - **Constituent** — a person or organization. Has contact details, communication preferences, and a soft-delete flag. - **Gift** — a single donation. Belongs to a constituent, has an amount, date, campaign, and designation. - **Pledge** — a commitment to give, with a schedule. Generates expected gifts. - **Household** — groups constituents who should receive one mailing rather than several. - **Campaign** — a fundraising effort with a goal and a date range. - **Designation** — what the money is for. Restricted or unrestricted. The tricky relationship is household. A gift belongs to a constituent, but acknowledgment goes to a household, and reporting is sometimes by one and sometimes by the other. Getting this wrong produces either duplicate thank-you letters or a thank-you addressed to the wrong spouse, both of which generate complaints that reach the executive director. --- ### Operational review notebook **Provenance exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Donor Records — Data Model.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. ## DOC: Soft Credit Rules A soft credit records that someone influenced a gift without being the legal donor. This is the single most misunderstood part of the system. Rules as implemented: 1. A gift from a donor-advised fund gives hard credit to the fund and soft credit to the advisor. 2. A matching gift from an employer gives hard credit to the employer and soft credit to the employee. 3. A gift from one spouse gives soft credit to the other when they share a household and the household is flagged as joint-crediting. 4. A gift solicited by a board member gives soft credit to that board member if recorded at entry. Reporting consequence: total raised uses hard credit only. Donor recognition lists use hard plus soft. These numbers will never match, and every year someone notices and asks whether something is wrong. Nothing is wrong. There is a note about this on the report footer that nobody reads. Rule 3 is the one most often misconfigured. Joint crediting defaults to **off** for new households, which surprises people migrating from the old system where it was effectively always on. --- ### Operational review notebook **Permissions exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. **Review exercise for Soft Credit Rules.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. ## DOC: Acknowledgment Workflow Every gift gets acknowledged. Target is within 72 hours; actual median is 4 days. Process: 1. Gift entered, either by staff or by the online form. 2. Nightly job assembles the acknowledgment queue, grouping by household. 3. Templates selected by gift amount band and designation. 4. Letters generated as a merged PDF for printing; emails sent directly for constituents who prefer email. 5. Gift record stamped with acknowledgment date. Amount bands: under 100, 100–999, 1,000–9,999, 10,000 and above. The top band is held for personal signature rather than auto-sent, which is where most of the delay comes from. First-time donors get a different template regardless of band. This is checked by looking for any prior gift from the household, not the constituent — a detail that took two attempts to get right. --- ### Operational review notebook **Exceptions exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. **Review exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. **Handover exercise for Acknowledgment Workflow.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. ## DOC: Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes December is roughly 40% of annual revenue and all of the stress. What changes in December: - Gift entry runs daily instead of weekly. - Acknowledgment target tightens to 48 hours, which we do not meet. - The online form sees traffic spikes on the 30th and 31st that are 20x normal. - Everything dated 31 December must be receipted in that tax year regardless of when it is entered, which means the date entered and the gift date diverge and reporting has to use gift date. The 31st spike is the operational risk. Two years ago the form timed out for a stretch of the evening and we do not know how much we lost. Last year we load-tested in advance and it held. Postmark rule: a mailed gift postmarked 31 December counts for that tax year even if it arrives in January. Staff check envelopes and enter the postmark date. This is manual and error-prone and there is no better option. --- ### Operational review notebook **Rehearsal exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. **Review exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. **Handover exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. **Provenance exercise for Year-End Campaign — Operational Notes.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. ## DOC: Reporting Pack — Monthly Produced for the board on the 10th. Contents: - Revenue month and year to date, against goal, hard credit only. - Gift count and average gift, with prior-year comparison. - New donors acquired and donors lapsed, using a 13-month lapse definition. - Campaign progress for active campaigns. - Restricted versus unrestricted split. The lapse definition matters and is frequently misquoted. A donor is lapsed if they have made no gift in the **13 months** preceding the report date. Thirteen rather than twelve so that an annual donor who gives slightly late is not counted as lost. Retention rate is computed against the prior year's donor set, not against all donors ever. This is standard but counterintuitive and is explained in a footnote that, again, nobody reads. --- ### Operational review notebook **Archiving exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. **Review exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. **Handover exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. **Provenance exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Reporting Pack — Monthly.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. ## DOC: Data Hygiene — Standing Issues - **Duplicate constituents.** Roughly 300 known suspected duplicates. Merging is destructive and we have no undo, so it is done carefully and slowly by one person. - **Address quality.** About 6% of mailing addresses are undeliverable. We get returns back and update, but the cycle is slow. - **Email bounces.** Hard bounces are flagged automatically; soft bounces are not tracked, which means a mailbox that has been full for a year looks fine. - **Deceased constituents.** No automated screening. We find out when a letter comes back or a family member calls, which is a bad way to find out and occasionally a painful one. The deceased screening is the one with real human cost and it is the one we have not fixed, because the screening services cost money and the budget conversation keeps getting deferred. --- ### Operational review notebook **Accessibility exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe. **Review exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. **Handover exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. **Provenance exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Data Hygiene — Standing Issues.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. ## DOC: Migration Notes — Legacy System Migrated from the previous system two years ago. Notes kept because questions still arise. What came over cleanly: constituents, gifts, campaigns. What did not: - **Pledges.** The old system modelled a pledge as a series of expected gifts with no parent record. We reconstructed parents by grouping on a convention in the description field. About 40 could not be reconstructed and were entered by hand. - **Soft credits.** The old system had one undifferentiated soft credit type. We mapped everything to "solicited by" and accepted the loss of fidelity on historical records. Anything before the migration date should be treated as approximate. - **Communication preferences.** The old system had a single opt-out flag; the new one has per-channel preferences. Everyone who had opted out was set to opted out on all channels, which is the safe direction. - **Attachments.** Scanned correspondence did not migrate. It lives in a read-only archive that three people know how to search. --- ### Operational review notebook **Review exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a development director comparing two constituent-service workflows. The reviewer started from the donor interaction and the internal record change as separate outcomes, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a faster response that leaves the underlying preference record incorrect. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We will evaluate the proposed revision using both an ordinary case and the awkward case from this exercise. Record the extra work done by the recipient as well as the work saved by the author. A local improvement is not a process improvement if it merely transfers effort to the next person. Keep the observations in this notebook so the eventual decision can be reviewed against what was actually demonstrated. **Handover exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. **Provenance exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Migration Notes — Legacy System.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. ## DOC: Scratch — database admin - the household/constituent reporting split comes up every single month, write it down somewhere people will actually look - joint crediting default: should it be on? migrating orgs expect it on. argument for off is that it is the conservative choice and wrong-direction errors are visible - soft bounce tracking, nobody owns this - deceased screening — raise again in the budget cycle, do not let it slide a third year - the 40 hand-entered pledges, are they right? nobody has checked since migration ### Operational review notebook **Handover exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with a fundraiser transferring a constituent query to donor services. The reviewer started from the donor record identity and the question actually asked, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a forwarded message dropping the earlier explanation of the donor preference. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Keep the original artifact next to the amended one during review. A correction should say what the operator learned, who confirmed it, and which downstream view still needs to be refreshed. Replacing the artifact silently makes it impossible to distinguish a genuine repair from an accidental edit. The follow-up is to check a second example with a different history before treating the exercise as complete. **Provenance exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Scratch — database admin.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. ## DOC: Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks Working note for the next operations review. This document concerns its named workstream; it does not revise settings in other documents. ### Operational review notebook **Provenance exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with a volunteer comparing a mailing proof with the constituent record. The reviewer started from the record revision and the approved wording of the salutation, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a spreadsheet copy preserving an address that has since been corrected. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. We separated what the interface displays from what the operator can prove. The visible label is useful for navigation, but it is not evidence of the underlying action. The reviewer should ask for a traceable source and write down the remaining uncertainty. If the source cannot be found, leave that uncertainty visible rather than filling the gap with a familiar-looking value from another workstream. **Permissions exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with a campaign helper preparing envelopes from a limited export. The reviewer started from the minimum fields required for the mailing task, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was an export including private notes that the helper has no reason to see. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. The walkthrough exposed a handover problem rather than a need for a new setting. The first person knew why the record looked unusual; the next person saw only the finished artifact. Add the explanation at the handover boundary and make its author visible. A private conversation can clarify the immediate case but cannot be the permanent place where the operating decision lives. **Exceptions exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with a donor services officer reviewing an ambiguous returned envelope. The reviewer started from the envelope image and the uncertainty about the intended recipient, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a household address being changed on the basis of one illegible annotation. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Use an example that has already completed its ordinary workflow when rehearsing this case. Do not repair a live record just to make a demonstration easier to follow. The exercise should preserve the confusing state, record the action taken, and show how a recipient can tell that the action finished. A clean screenshot alone is insufficient because it hides the transition that caused the confusion. **Rehearsal exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with a coordinator training a volunteer on acknowledgement preparation. The reviewer started from synthetic gifts and prominently fictional constituent names, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a practice acknowledgement entering the ordinary outbound mail tray. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. For the next review, ask a colleague outside this workstream to follow the written instructions without prompting. Note the point where they need information that is not on the page. That missing context is more useful than a general request to improve documentation. Revise the specific step and repeat the walkthrough with another ordinary example rather than expanding every paragraph equally. **Archiving exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with an administrator retiring an old campaign letter. The reviewer started from the approved language revision and the campaign it belongs to, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a favourite local copy being reused after the shared template was replaced. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. Retain the superseded wording in the revision history with a clear explanation of why it changed. We want people searching old discussions to understand whether they found an obsolete procedure or an unresolved proposal. Link the decision to its supporting artifact and keep draft material visibly marked until the responsible reviewer has accepted it. **Accessibility exercise for Recognition List Review — Editorial Checks.** We walked through the document with a supporter reading an email with images disabled. The reviewer started from the written purpose and destination of every action link, then followed the work to the point where another person would rely on it. The awkward case was a donation link whose meaning depends entirely on decorative artwork. The discussion belongs with this document because the decision has to be intelligible to someone reading the note later, without the author in the room. A useful completion check starts from the recipient perspective. Ask whether the recipient can identify the current artifact, understand the exception, and find the person responsible for resolving it. If any of those requires access to a private chat, the handover is still incomplete. The correction should improve that specific gap rather than add a broad assurance that the process is safe.