Workshop — 22 August 2026

Field	Value
Version	1.0
Written	2026-08-22
Call	BoRo Chat Lifecycle Review · 2026-08-22, 08:00–09:01 CDT · 62.8 min · transcript
Speakers	CJ Oltman, Jay Nguyen, Brad Larson — all three present
Against	Review method v2.2 §8 · Open items v1.9 · Build state v3.4
Coverage	973 sentences read in full, 00:00 – 1:01:21. Ledger in §1. Three mechanical scans run before writing. Two passes.
New item prefix	`W-`, so nothing collides with the existing `D` / `Q` / `C` / `N` / `NS` / `CR` / `R` tags

BLUF

Jay approved the whole visual layer without a single objection, and the walkthrough produced far more than the last one did — but of the items the register said this workshop existed to settle, exactly one landed.

D-3 (dock placement) was never mentioned. Not once. Neither was D-1 (the QR model), NS-3 (manual check-in), D-2, or the twelve proposed stages awaiting Brad’s adoption. Q3 / D-4 — the Cancelled-vs-Terminated naming Brad explicitly parked for Jay — did not get put to him.
C6 landed. CJ restated the Lane B rule correctly at [06:05] and Jay heard it. That was the one thing on the Jay list that needed saying out loud, and it was said.
This is R-6 happening again, verbatim. A stage-by-stage walkthrough surfaces whatever is on screen. It will not surface a decisions list. The register said so before the call and the call proved it.

What it did produce is substantial: three FSD-level conflicts, one of them against a LOCKED section, and a process decision that changes what this document IS.

W-1 · Jay asserted a 15-minute check-in window three times. FSD §10.2 says, verbatim, “There is no separate 15-minute timer.”
W-2 · Jay’s mutual-no-show rule (both parties released) is not in the FSD, and the file currently says the opposite — CJ caught the wrong copy live and said he would fix it.
W-3 · Brad’s “simplest version” for launch removes the booking-time lane selection that FSD §8 — a LOCKED section — is built on. Jay said so himself: “we had to remove whatever the midpoint is.”
W-4 · This document becomes the source of truth, in a git repo, replacing the scattered Google Docs — including the Drive folder CJ asked for forty minutes earlier in the same call.

One defect CJ named on the call is already logged and now confirmed from the product side: “Complete and rent item… is not linking to the right screen. They should be able to do it right there.” That is R-11, and Jay independently said the same thing — “or they can rent it out right there and then.”

1 / Coverage ledger

The brief’s §8 obligation: every block yields a numbered note or an explicit “no action.” A block with neither is a block that was not read.

Block	Topic	Outcome
00:00 – 02:30	Greetings, Jay’s 4 a.m. routine	no action
02:44 – 03:15	September get-together, Robert	not actionable
03:16 – 04:37	Screen share fails, dropdown not visible	no action (tooling)
04:38 – 05:50	CJ asks for a Google Drive master-doc folder	W-4 (superseded later in the same call)
06:05 – 06:40	Lane B: 30-day term, five six-day segments, refresh	C6 CLOSED · confirmation
06:41 – 07:03	Desktop / mobile, notes panel	no action
07:04 – 07:12	Jay: “is this something the user will see?”	confirmation — internal only
07:13 – 08:12	Brad on why he built it; Jay praises	confirmation
08:13 – 08:59	FSD as gut-check; styles/deviations captured	confirmation
09:05 – 09:36	Try-on vs inspection label derives from the item	confirmation of G-1
09:37 – 10:07	Both role views	confirmation
10:08 – 10:36	The request form; 45 minutes locked, not user-changeable	confirmation (V-1 / D-6)
10:37 – 11:27	Who picks the location	confirmation
11:28 – 12:16	Jay: what happened to the Google Maps midpoint?	W-3
12:17 – 13:01	Big items, meet at the house, override the default	W-5
13:02 – 14:10	Jay: FSD travel credit, $0.75/mile	W-3, and a misstatement — see §7
14:11 – 15:35	Users must be TOLD the credit exists	W-6
15:36 – 17:11	Simplest-version-for-launch, agreed by all three	W-7 · decision
17:13 – 17:26	Renter edit/cancel, lender approve/deny	confirmation
17:27 – 18:13	Denied schedule: reschedule button? alternate dates?	W-8, unsettled
18:14 – 18:40	Rename `schedule-denied` → “Lender unavailable at requested time”	W-9
18:41 – 18:58	Collapsed cards; CJ: chips no longer line up	W-10
18:59 – 19:15	Jay: do hidden messages sit in the Timeline?	confirmation of B-5
19:16 – 19:41	Inspection scheduled; the inter-milestone chat	confirmation
19:42 – 20:13	Jay: when is the commitment hold authorized?	confirmation
20:13 – 20:29	Add a checkbox to the commitment-hold disclosure	W-11
20:30 – 21:21	Rename “Meetup no show” → “Meetup window closed”; leave the thread open?	W-12, W-13
21:22 – 23:23	Brad: no-show is a support case; start simple	W-13 resolved
23:24 – 24:36	Jay’s 15-minute window and mutual-release rule	W-1, W-2
24:37 – 25:20	Master folder; Jay asks for access; banter	not actionable
25:21 – 25:29	CJ catches wrong no-show copy live	acknowledged gap
25:30 – 26:23	Jay will annotate; Brad wants eyes before dev	not actionable
26:24 – 28:00	Jay: in-app calling? Brad: defer	W-14 · deferred
28:01 – 28:35	Check-in states, QR, inspection timer	confirmation
28:36 – 29:16	Stripe: Shield authorize + rental fee at scan	confirmation
29:17 – 30:06	Process: Jay produces the doc, calls out what is wrong	not actionable
30:07 – 30:40	Inspection timer, session closed, lender confirms return	confirmation
30:41 – 31:27	“Or they can rent it out right there and then”	R-11 confirmed
31:10 – 31:20	CJ: “Complete and rent item is not linking to the right screen”	acknowledged gap · R-11
31:28 – 32:57	Brad: mandatory photo capture at pickup	W-15
32:58 – 34:21	Jay’s full condition flow, incl. serials and AI comparison	W-16
34:22 – 34:40	One video allowed	confirmation (§10.3)
34:40 – 36:05	Brad: “suggest an improvement” / provide feedback	W-17
36:06 – 37:40	Jay: is there an off-site testing screen?	acknowledged gap · W-18
37:41 – 38:33	FSD needs a clean, UI-aware version	W-19
38:34 – 39:40	Lane A must not read “None”	W-20
39:41 – 40:00	Accept / decline / report; rental active	confirmation
40:04 – 40:40	CJ: how should segments accrue on extend?	W-21, CJ’s own open question
40:41 – 41:29	Brad: put the “why this stage exists” context in the notes panel	W-22
41:30 – 43:52	This document becomes the source of truth, in a repo	W-4 · decision
42:27 – 43:07	Notes panel moves right, scrolls, pops out	W-23
43:53 – 45:16	Changes land as preview links / PRs	W-24
45:17 – 45:45	The gown thread lands; laughter	confirmation of B-5
45:46 – 53:14	Chat guardrails: links, emails, phone numbers	W-25
50:19 – 51:23	Instructions belong in a rental-notes field, not a link	W-26
53:15 – 54:49	Extension, return meetup, return chain, overdue	confirmation
54:50 – 55:29	Assessment, dispute	confirmation
55:30 – 55:36	CJ: “I don’t have the review screen done yet”	acknowledged gap · W-27
55:37 – 57:29	Praise; “this is the whole app”; meet more often	not actionable
57:29 – 58:07	Brad’s ask of CJ: implement today’s notes, move the panel, hand it back for the repo	action on CJ
58:08 – 59:55	Weekly three-way meeting, 9 a.m. Eastern	not actionable
59:56 – 1:00:29	Landing-page update for an investor	not actionable
1:00:30 – 1:01:21	Sign-off, shirt, Brad’s robbery	no action

2 / Confirmations

Reviewed and explicitly approved. Nothing here needs rework.

The document as a whole. Jay, 07:32: “Well, this is so cool.” 08:03: “very self explanatory and it’s very easy to navigate… make sure that we check off everything on the list.” 55:37: “Brad, I gotta say man, this is genius idea that you came up with. And the way that CJ put it together is very nice, very easy to understand.”
C6 — the Lane B rule was restated correctly and Jay heard it. CJ, 06:05: “there’s things like this where you can have a 30 day term, five, six day segments. Correct. That’s one of the options.” C6 can be closed.
G-1’s derived label. CJ, 09:28: “It turns to request try on versus request inspection.” Jay: “Yeah, I see that. Yep.”
45-minute session, locked, not user-changeable. CJ, 10:27: “I think we locked this down at 45 minutes. Not something that they can change, right?” Jay: “Yeah.” → V-1 / D-6 confirmed from the product side.
The commitment hold authorizes at the request step. Jay asked where it happens, 19:46; CJ: “When they go through and make this request, this is where the commitment hold comes in.” Jay: “Okay. All right, good. All right, perfect.”
B-5 — the Timeline tab holds what the Chat tab shows. Jay, 18:59: “are these going to sit in the timeline?” CJ: “Yep… It just shows what’s hidden.” Jay: “Okay, perfect.”
B-5’s inter-milestone chat, again, by reaction. CJ showed the gown thread at 45:18 — “Is it true to size? I usually wear a four” — and it got the biggest laugh of the call. Brad: “Oh, my God… size four, that’d be great.”
Stripe at pairing: Shield authorization AND rental fee, two transactions. Jay, 28:36: “As soon as they scan the QR code, that is when stripe going to require the borousa to authorize the borousa shield.” CJ: “If it’s for something more than $100, right?” Jay: “Yeah… It’s going to charge the rental fee and it also going to authorize the board shield.” Brad: “Yep.” → the rental-auth card is right.
One video, alongside the photos. Jay, 34:22. Matches FSD §10.3.
The two return artifacts. CJ, 54:07: “This goes to borousa blind, huh?” Jay: “Yeah, yeah.” → the §11.2 correction in HANDOFF §4 is right.
The document is internal, not user-facing. Jay asked at 07:04; CJ: “This is for us.”

Silence is data. Nobody raised the chip tones, the card tones, the dark theme, the map plate, the date separators, the badge vocabulary, the reading column, the mobile header, the dock, the composer, the filter, or the all-stages view. On a walkthrough this thorough, read as accepted.

3 / Acknowledged gaps

Anything either party said is not done, still to do, or forgotten. This is the bucket the last pass lost twice.

#	Gap	Quote	Owner
W-a	“Complete & Rent Item” goes to the wrong screen.	CJ, 31:10: “If we do complete and rent item, then this is not linking to the right screen because… they should be able to do it right there.”	CJ · this is R-11
W-b	The no-show card’s copy is wrong. Caught live, mid-read.	CJ, 25:23: “The rental was terminated and the full commitment hold is. Oh no, nevermind. That’s never. Yeah, I gotta, I’ll fix that text.”	CJ · see W-2
W-c	No off-site testing screen exists.	Jay, 36:06: “during this flow check in is there like a off site testing screen? Have you created out those?” — not answered directly	CJ · W-18
W-d	The review screen is not built.	CJ, 55:30: “I don’t have the review screen done yet or anything.”	CJ · W-27
W-e	The forms were described as non-interactive. Stated as of the demo; they navigate now.	CJ, 10:16: “These aren’t interactive yet. This is just an example.”	Recorded so it is not read back as current
W-f	Jay has not yet cross-checked the older lifecycle document.	Jay, 29:54: “I just had to go back and search for the document to make sure that it matching your flow right now on the screen.”	Jay

4 / Answers to open questions

Moved

C6 · The Lane B rule — CLOSED. Restated correctly and heard. See §2.

R-11 · Renting straight off a try-on — CONFIRMED AS REAL, from two directions. The register logged this as a spine problem found while wiring buttons. The call confirms it is a product requirement, not a modelling artefact. Jay, 30:53: “Or they can rent it out right there and then.” CJ, [30:56]: “Right.” Then CJ at [31:10] names the defect directly. → The label is right and the stage list is missing a position. This is now evidenced and belongs to Brad.

Q6 · The hold on the pending card — moved further. CJ proposed a consent checkbox on the disclosure, 20:13: “We might even want to have a check box next to this… By selecting this box, you agree that.” Jay: “Yeah, I think so. That way they know.” → See W-11.

NOT addressed — and this is the finding

Everything the register said this workshop was for, except C6. Named individually, because a blocker that stayed blocked is the result:

ID	What it was	What happened
D-3	Dock placement — the register called it “the decision the workshop exists to make”	Never mentioned. Not once, in 63 minutes.
D-1	The QR model — one code, either party scans; Brad and Jay were to react	The code was shown and scanned. The model was never discussed. Jay spoke only about what Stripe does at scan.
NS-3	Manual check-in fallback — deferred to Jay by Brad’s own instruction	Never mentioned.
Q3 / D-4	Cancelled vs Terminated naming — Brad explicitly parked this for Jay	Not put to him. CJ caught wrong copy on the terminated card but the naming question never came up.
R-7	Twelve proposed stages awaiting Brad’s adoption	Never flagged to Jay as proposed. He reviewed ours and Brad’s as one set.
D-2	The blue own-bubble	Never mentioned. No colour discussion of any kind.
D-7, Q14, Q15, Q16	CJ’s design items	Never mentioned.

The pattern, again. R-6 in the register says: “A stage-by-stage walkthrough will not surface a decisions list. It surfaces whatever is on screen.” That was written after the 2026-08-21 call and it predicted this one exactly. Neither call has surfaced a decisions list, because neither was one. If these items matter before build, they need a targeted pass with the list in hand.

5 / Change requests

Against things that already exist.

W-9 · Rename schedule-denied. CJ, 18:30: “maybe instead of schedule denied to we say lender unavailable at requested time.” Brad: “Yeah.” → Adjacent to R-8 (schedule-denied is one stage doing two jobs). If it is split, both halves need names; if it is not, the new name has to be true of a denied pickup as well as a denied inspection.

W-10 · The fold chevron pushes the chips out of alignment. CJ, 18:53: “I think I might move this down a little bit lower. So I would like the chips to still be lined up.” CJ’s own note against B-4.

W-11 · A consent checkbox on the commitment-hold disclosure. CJ + Jay, [20:13]. “By selecting this box, you agree that…” → touches the G-1 forms and the pending card. Note it makes the disclosure an acceptance, not just a statement, which is a legal posture change worth Jay confirming in writing.

W-12 · Rename “Meetup no show” → “Meetup window closed.” CJ, 20:52. Jay: “Yeah.” → Careful: this collides with Q3 / D-4. “Window closed” is a third name alongside Cancelled and Terminated, and D-4 is precisely the question of what a no-show is called and what tone it wears. Do not take W-12 in isolation.

W-13 · A no-show is a dead end with contact support, not a reschedule — SETTLED ON THE CALL, and it reverses CJ’s own proposal made ninety seconds earlier. CJ first proposed keeping the thread open with the two buttons, 21:01. Brad pushed back, 21:22: “if there’s a no show and it gets into this weird state… this is like an issue that a borousa people need to sort of resolve… Should we even allow them to reschedule or whatever. I don’t know. I guess we have to.” CJ then moved himself, 21:57: “we should probably just have like remove the button from here, just have conversation close and then a button under that that says need help.” Brad, 22:22: “I think we start with like the simplest form which is like you were too late and now the window closed and now it’s contact support.” → This confirms what is already built. But see W-1/W-2 — Jay’s rule says there is no support after the window, which Brad’s resolution contradicts.

W-20 · Lane A must not read “None.” CJ said it would say “none on items under a hundred dollars.” Jay, 39:09: “even like lane A, we can just put credit cards on file, because that’s what it is… That way it make the user feel safe versus we say just none on lane A. They wouldn’t know what that means.” CJ: “obviously it wouldn’t be BoRo Shield. Then we would just put something else.” Jay: “Yeah. Okay, cool.” → The file currently says BoRo Shield · None on Lane A and “No BoRo Shield on this lane.” Both need rewording. Straightforward and agreed.

W-22 · The notes panel must carry the “why this stage exists” reasoning — asked for by the developer, about the handoff. Brad, 40:51: “if we could have the notes panel explain… there’s a section for why the stage exists… if we could capture some of that information in the why it exists. So there’s that context for when I implement, so that it doesn’t just look at it. It can actually understand why we’ve made this screen and why this screen is even there. That’ll help a lot.” → This is the clearest statement in either call of what Brad actually needs from the artifact.

W-23 · Move the notes panel to the right; make it scroll, make it bigger, make it pop out. Brad, 42:48. CJ agreed. CJ had asked for a pop-out window at [42:34]. → Affects the capture wrapper only, not the product preview.

W-15 · Mandatory photo capture at handover. Brad, 32:13: “I think we should always have them take a photo like mandatory, like when they pick it up… It’s a really easy way to confirm what condition something is in.” And [32:01]: “a place for them to do the pictures… take a picture and upload it.” → The capture-condition form exists; the “take a photo” control and the mandatory framing do not.

6 / New scope

Things that do not exist yet.

#	Item	Source	Where it slots
W-4	This document becomes the source of truth, hosted in a git repo, replacing the Google Docs. Brad: “this becomes its own repo and this is hosted… instead of having documents, this is the documents” [42:08]; “turning this into an actual like wiki type of thing might be the play” [43:08]; “if it’s in a git repo, we can capture the history” [43:47]. CJ: “we shouldn’t be having documents on the side. We should just have like our own wiki” [42:01]. Jay: “Oh, I love that.”	All three	Changes what this artifact IS. See §7 C-3.
W-24	Changes ship as preview links and PRs — collaborate, one person implements, all review, approve, merge. Brad, [44:22].	Brad, Jay agreed	Process
W-17	“Suggest an improvement / provide feedback” in the rating flow and/or the ⋮ menu. Brad: “there might be situations where someone’s like this didn’t work quite right… it’d be nice to have the ability to capture that especially for the early stages” [35:36]. CJ: “we’ll definitely add that.”	Brad	⋮ menu + a new screen
W-18	An off-site testing state. Inside the geofence: Accept / Decline / Report an issue. The moment the borrower leaves with the item, Decline disables — Accept or Report only. Forget to accept → auto-accept at 45 min. Report → freezes the transaction and notifies the lender to collect. Jay, [36:28]–[37:34].	Jay	This is FSD §10.4 verbatim and the file does not model the geofence-dependent state. The `rental-decision` card shows all three controls unconditionally.
W-16	AI comparison of the two photo sets drives the payout. Jay, 33:55: “we’re going to have AI compare to see what would this discrepancy. And it will process the payout based on these photos.” Also: serial numbers in the capture, [33:14].	Jay	Not in the FSD as written. §11.3 says “damage on the evidence” and names no comparison mechanism.
W-25	Chat guardrails. Block links outright; block emails and phone numbers; notify BOTH parties when something is blocked, with the reason. Brad, [48:50]: “if they try to post a link it gives them both people a message.” Jay’s reason is liability, [52:22]: “any reason that we do get sued later, the insurance, they’re going to look at evidence that we did provide support to tell them, hey, we told you not to click on the link.” CJ raised a concern at [49:02] and Brad answered it at [49:19].	All three	New — a chat-layer feature the lifecycle does not cover
W-26	A rental-notes / instructions field, so manuals and instructions do not travel as links. Brad, [50:40]: “I would make a mechanism in the actual rental… a place for them to upload or put the instructions”; [51:07] compares it to Airbnb host notes.	Brad	New field, ⋮ menu adjacent
W-14	In-app calling — raised and DEFERRED. Jay asked, [26:24]. Brad, [26:54]: “let’s see how it does without that step. That would be my vote. Just because anything they talk about on the phone isn’t something that we can capture.” CJ raised proxy-number complexity (Rover, Turo, DoorDash). Jay: “Okay, I agree.”	Jay → deferred	Backlog
W-5	Location override — meet at a house rather than a midpoint, for items too big to haul. CJ, [12:17]; Brad agreed defaults-with-override, [12:45]: “if they agree on something in the Chat… they should be able to do whatever they agree to.”	CJ, Brad	Folds into W-3 / W-7
W-6	Users must be told the travel credit exists before they negotiate. Brad, [14:35]: “we would need to tell them like hey, this is how that works at the very beginning… so they’re not surprised when they realize oh I’m getting money back.” CJ proposed an info affordance at location select, [15:15].	Brad	Onboarding / tooltip — only if W-3 keeps the credit
W-8	A reschedule affordance after a denial. CJ floated “choose another time” and “maybe for the other person, it even allows them to provide other dates and times that they’re available” [17:52–18:01]. Jay then simplified: “they can just click schedule rental again… that way just keep it simple” [18:14]. Two directions in one exchange; not settled.	CJ vs Jay	Unsettled
W-19	A clean, UI-aware version of the FSD. CJ, [37:53]: “AI puts a lot of different notes in there that are more for us and not like the app… we’ll have to figure out how to have a clean very specific version” that says which buttons show when.	CJ	Feeds W-4
W-21	How segments accrue on extend. CJ, [40:20]: “I’m thinking that would be better if it’s like we just click extend and then it puts a break here. So it has two, and then every time extend, it just kind of has up to the point where they have the full.”	CJ	Folds into R-11 / B-9 / Q15 — same question from a third side
W-27	The review screen. Does not exist.	CJ	New

7 / Conflicts to resolve

These are the reason to read this document. Three of them touch canon, and one touches a LOCKED section.

C-1 · The 15-minute check-in window vs FSD §10.2

FSD §10.2, verbatim: “Each of the two phases has exactly one 45-minute session timer. There is no separate 15-minute timer.”

Jay, three times, as settled rule. 23:27: “let’s say you and Brad supposed to meet up at 10am and it should give, I believe it’s a 15 minute window.” [23:46]: “if Brad show up and CJ doesn’t show up within that 15 minute then it’s done.” [24:23]: “after the 15 minute timer is done, then that’s it.”

→ Either §10.2’s sentence is wrong, or Jay is describing a check-in grace window that is a different thing from the session timer and is nowhere in the FSD. The second reading is the charitable one and I think it is right — a “show up within 15 minutes of the agreed time” rule is not the same object as the 45-minute functional-test session. But §10.2’s sentence forecloses it as written, and the file was built on that sentence. [BRAD-CONFIRM] and [FSD]. Do not build a 15-minute anything until this is settled.

C-2 · Mutual no-show releases both holds — not in the FSD, and the file says the opposite

FSD §6.1: “on borrower cancellation 12–24 hours before the meetup, 50% is captured; under 12 hours or no-show, 100%. Forfeited funds pass through 100% to the non-violating party’s BoRo Wallet.” A mutual no-show has no non-violating party. §6.1 does not define this case.

Jay defines it. 23:39: “If neither one show up, then it released the commitment hole back to Brad and back to CJ.” And after CJ misread it, 24:09: “No, if neither side meet up then both at fault, we’re going to release the money back to them. To both of them.”

The file currently states the opposite on both terminal cards — “the commitment hold is forfeited to the other party” on cancelled, and “the full commitment hold is forfeited to the other party” on terminated-noshow. CJ caught it live and said he would fix the text [25:27].

→ This is a real defect in the built screens and a real gap in the FSD. The rule is Jay’s to write down; the copy fix follows it. Also note it settles part of Q3/D-4 by implication — if a mutual no-show releases both holds and a one-sided no-show forfeits, those are two different outcomes and arguably two different statuses, which is exactly what D-4 is about. Settle C-2, Q3 and D-4 together.

C-3 · The travel/midpoint model vs FSD §8 — a LOCKED section

FSD §8 is locked and detailed: the borrower selects one of three exchange lanes at booking; travel is priced on productive miles beyond the midpoint, one way per leg, at $0.75/mile; “a halfway meetup on both legs is $0.00 to both parties.”

Jay asked where it went. 11:56: “Are we still able to do that or.” Brad: “We’re still able to do that. But… that piece is a little bit complex. So before we add something like that in, I wanna start a little simpler.”

Jay then named the consequence himself, 13:34: “if we are going to go with your route Brad, then we had to remove whatever the midpoint is. So the FSD not going to be confused.”

And all three then agreed to the simpler model — see W-7.

→ Shipping the simple model means amending a LOCKED FSD section. That is not a thing to do by implication. Someone has to write it down. [JAY-OWNS] — it is his section.

A misstatement worth catching before it propagates, exactly like C6 last time. Jay described the credit as “75 cents per mile both way” and “CJ will earn a credit of 75 cents per mile both way” 13:34. §8 says the opposite: one way per leg, and “neither party is paid for the empty return trip — the deadhead.” The file is correct because it states no travel figures at all. Flagged only so the spoken version does not get quoted onward.

C-4 · “No support after the window” vs “contact support”

Jay, 24:28: “after the 15 minute timer is done, then that’s it. There’s no support, there’s no real reschedule or nothing. They had a chance and then that’s it.” Brad, [22:22]: “you were too late and now the window closed and now it’s contact support.” CJ, [21:57]: “a button under that that says you know, need help.”

→ The built card carries Contact Support. Two of three want that; Jay wants a hard stop. Small, but it is the copy on a terminal screen and they do not agree. [BRAD-CONFIRM] with Jay.

C-5 · W-4 supersedes CJ’s own request from earlier in the same call

At [04:38] CJ asked for a Google Drive folder holding the master documentation. At [42:01] CJ said “we shouldn’t be having documents on the side” and agreed the repo/wiki is the answer. Both are in the same transcript. The later one wins on the face of it, but the earlier ask was specific — holds, Shield, allowed products — and those documents exist today. Say explicitly which survives, or the Drive folder gets built and abandoned.

C-6 · W-12’s “window closed” is a third name for a state Q3/D-4 has not named

See W-12. Three candidate names now — Cancelled, Terminated, Meetup window closed — for what may be two or three distinct outcomes once C-2 is settled. Do not rename anything until Q3, D-4 and C-2 are settled as one question.

8 / Not actionable

The September get-together with Robert; Jay’s 4 a.m. routine; a screen-share failure at the start; Jay asking for a copy of the file (CJ agreed); banter; Brad’s asks of CJ for next steps — implement today’s notes, move the notes panel to the right, hand it back so Brad can make a real repo and host it 57:29; a standing weekly three-way meeting moved to 9:00 a.m. Eastern, with CJ/Jay’s one-on-one dropping to monthly; and a landing-page update Jay wants finished so he can send it to a potential investor.

Nothing in the simulator has been changed. No register entries have been added. This document is the review artifact and stops here, per your instruction.

If you want an order when you have read it:

C-2 first. It is a live wrong statement about money on two built screens, you caught it yourself, and the fix is copy — but it must follow the rule, not precede it.
W-20, W-15, W-10, W-22, W-23 — the unambiguous, agreed, non-canon changes. All small.
C-1 and C-3 to Brad and Jay in writing. Neither is a design question and neither should be guessed.
W-18 — the off-site testing state is pure FSD §10.4 and is the largest genuinely missing behaviour.
W-4 is a bigger conversation than a build item and probably wants its own session.

And the thing I would say out loud: the workshop did not settle any of the six decisions the register was holding for it. That is not a failure of the call — it was a good call — it is the second piece of evidence for R-6. A decisions list needs a decisions meeting.