{ "version": "1.8.0", "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "title": "CureClock — HOA/Condo Assessment Delinquency Notice-Compliance & Pre-Lien Collections Desk", "vertical": "Community-association management (CAM) compliance / HOA & condo assessment-delinquency notice production", "seed": { "s": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "t": "CureClock — HOA/Condo Assessment Delinquency Notice-Compliance & Pre-Lien Collections Desk", "v": "Community-association management (CAM) compliance / HOA & condo assessment-delinquency notice production", "r": "Medium-high", "m": "M" }, "product": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "project_name": "CureClock — HOA/Condo Assessment Delinquency Notice-Compliance & Pre-Lien Collections Desk", "project_type": "AI-native compliance-document-production service business", "vertical": "Community-association management (CAM) compliance / HOA & condo assessment-delinquency notice production", "audience": "Community association management (CAM) company principals and collections coordinators (secondary: self-managed HOA/condo board treasurers)", "geography": "Texas at launch (Prop. Code Ch. 209); Florida, California, and Colorado are gated expansion states pending attorney-reviewed rule matrices", "scale_expectation": "5 Texas CAM companies capped at 10 delinquent files each in cycle one; 10-pilot hardening checkpoint by month 2; a standing 20-pilot pause on new onboarding until rework rate, missed-deadline count, analyst review time, and client-reported error count are measured — delinquency is a continuous monthly flow, not a single-event deadline the way a tax filing is", "core_workflows": [ "Delinquency roster intake & confidence-scored normalization", "State Rule Matrix retrieval & deterministic deadline computation", "Cure Notice Pack drafting & Compliance Analyst statute-checklist review", "Deadline Ledger monitoring & Lien-Ready Packet assembly for attorney handoff" ], "discovery": { "one_line_purpose": "Turn a CAM company's delinquency roster into a state-statute-perfect, dated, cited notice-and-lien-readiness file before the next statutory deadline lapses.", "primary_users": [ "CAM company principal / collections lead", "CAM company collections coordinator (champion)", "Self-managed board treasurer", "Client's retained collections attorney (approver, not a CureClock user)" ], "jobs_to_be_done": [ "When an owner misses an assessment payment, produce the exact dated, state-compliant notice sequence so the association never loses its right to recover collection costs or file a valid lien.", "Stop tracking 50 different state statutes by hand across dozens of simultaneous delinquency files.", "Show board clients that delinquency handling is buttoned-up and consistent across the portfolio, not a source of embarrassing errors." ], "value_prop": "A dated, cited, lien-ready compliance file per delinquent account — at a fraction of attorney-hour cost, with none of the trust burden of an outside collector talking to the homeowner.", "competitors": [ "Alterra Assessment Recovery (contingency agency)", "Southwest Recovery Services (contingency agency)", "Tinnelly Law Group (assessment-collection law firm)", "KSN Law Firm (assessment-collection law firm)", "Community Collection Service (flat-fee agency)", "AppFolio / Vantaca / CINC Systems (HOA/PM software)" ], "differentiation": "CureClock is a document-production vendor, never the collector of record: it drafts a state-statute-perfect Notice Sequence and Lien-Ready Packet grounded in a maintained, attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix, at flat per-file pricing, and never bills hourly or takes a contingency cut at launch.", "positioning_statement": "For CAM company principals and collections coordinators managing a multi-association portfolio, CureClock is the notice-compliance production desk that turns a delinquency roster into a lien-ready file on the correct statutory schedule — unlike contingency agencies and law firms, CureClock never becomes the collector of record and never bills by the hour." }, "assumptions": [ { "id": "A1", "statement": "A CAM company managing 15+ associations has enough concurrent delinquency volume for per-file pricing to matter to them.", "confidence": "Medium", "impact_if_wrong": "MVP wedge would need a lower association-count floor or a bundled-portfolio price instead of per-file.", "revisit_trigger": "Fewer than 2 of the first 5 pilot signups meet the 15-association floor." }, { "id": "A2", "statement": "Texas CAM companies will accept a free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan as a lead magnet without treating it as a compliance liability to share their roster.", "confidence": "Medium", "impact_if_wrong": "Lead magnet would need a narrower, single-association trial instead of a full-roster upload.", "revisit_trigger": "Scan-to-pilot conversion under 5% after the first 20 scan requests." }, { "id": "A3", "statement": "A CAM company that adopts CureClock for one association expands to its full portfolio within 90 days if the pilot performs.", "confidence": "Low — inferred, not yet measured", "impact_if_wrong": "Retention/expansion assumption in the financial model would need to be revised downward.", "revisit_trigger": "Fewer than 2 of the first 5 pilot clients expand past their initial association by day 90." } ], "unknowns": [ { "id": "U1", "question": "What is the true national average HOA assessment delinquency rate (a single percentage figure)?", "blocks": "Precise TAM sizing", "resolution_path": "No single authoritative dataset was found in this run's search sweep; treat all sizing as a range, not a point estimate, until a primary dataset is located." }, { "id": "U2", "question": "What exact per-file fees or contingency percentages do named competitors charge?", "blocks": "Competitive pricing precision", "resolution_path": "Competitors publish qualitative pricing language, not rate cards; confirm via direct pilot-client conversations about what they currently pay." }, { "id": "U3", "question": "Will FDCPA applicability be found to extend nationally beyond the Seventh Circuit?", "blocks": "Long-run regulatory posture certainty", "resolution_path": "Monitor CAI advocacy updates and periodic counsel review; CureClock already assumes full applicability everywhere as the conservative default." } ], "expert_panel": [ { "role": "Community-association attorney", "key_concern": "Unauthorized practice of law if CureClock drafts lien documents that get filed without attorney review.", "recommendation": "Keep the lien-filing/recording chokepoint strictly with the client's retained attorney; never automate sign/file.", "dissent": "None — this is already the MVP design." }, { "role": "Collections operations lead", "key_concern": "100% human review at launch caps throughput per analyst.", "recommendation": "Accept the throughput cap through the 20-pilot checkpoint; only move to spot-check review once 100+ reviewed files per state prove the pattern.", "dissent": "A growth-focused reviewer might push to spot-check sooner; overruled by the zero-missed-deadline hard floor." }, { "role": "Compliance/privacy officer", "key_concern": "Homeowner financial/PII data exposure in the delinquency roster.", "recommendation": "Encrypted intake/storage, minimal retention, access-controlled review tooling, documented incident-response plan from day one.", "dissent": "None." } ], "strategy": { "business_model": "Flat per-file, per-sequence, and monthly-retainer document-production service; never hourly, never contingency at launch.", "revenue_streams": [ "Cure Notice Pack ($29–$39/file)", "Full Notice-to-Lien-Ready Sequence ($149–$199/file)", "Portfolio Deadline-Monitoring Retainer ($99–$349/mo)", "Multi-State Expansion Add-On (+$500 one-time per state)" ], "moat": [ "Maintained, version-controlled, attorney-reviewed 50-state statutory Rule Matrix", "Portfolio-wide Deadline Ledger monitoring across hundreds of simultaneous files", "Audit-trail evidentiary-file assembly that survives a homeowner's legal challenge", "Draft-only positioning that avoids the debt-collector-of-record trust burden competitors carry" ], "gtm": [ "Free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan lead magnet", "CAI local chapter events/directories", "LinkedIn outreach to CAM principals", "Community-association attorney referral partnerships", "Founder-led statute-cited content" ], "pricing_hypothesis": "Flat per-file pricing at $29–$39 undercuts a single billable attorney hour while remaining profitable once analyst review time falls from 12 to 5 minutes per file by day 90.", "kill_criteria": [ "Any missed statutory deadline in the pilot cohort", "Rework rate above 10%", "Fewer than 5 Texas CAM companies willing to pilot after 30 days of outreach" ] }, "security": { "stride": [ { "threat": "Spoofing", "scenario": "An attacker impersonates a CAM company to submit a fraudulent roster.", "mitigation": "Authenticated intake portal/form tied to a verified client account before any file is opened." }, { "threat": "Tampering", "scenario": "Roster data is altered in transit or storage before drafting.", "mitigation": "Encrypted intake/storage and an append-only audit log of every generation, review, and delivery event." }, { "threat": "Repudiation", "scenario": "A client disputes that a notice was reviewed before delivery.", "mitigation": "Reviewer ID and checklist result logged on every file, retained for the audit trail." }, { "threat": "Information disclosure", "scenario": "Homeowner financial/PII data leaks from the review tooling.", "mitigation": "Access-controlled review tooling limited to trained Compliance Analysts and the compliance lead." }, { "threat": "Denial of service", "scenario": "A burst of roster uploads exceeds analyst review capacity.", "mitigation": "Pilot caps (10 files/client, 5 clients cycle one) explicitly bound intake volume until throughput is proven." }, { "threat": "Elevation of privilege", "scenario": "A non-attorney role attempts to approve a Lien-Ready Packet.", "mitigation": "Lien-Ready Packet approval is hard-gated to the client's retained attorney role only, never bypassed by confidence score." } ], "privacy_posture": "Minimal data retention, encrypted storage, and access limited to the analysts actively working a given file; no roster data used outside the engaged client's own files.", "compliance_targets": [ "FDCPA (federal)", "Texas Property Code Ch. 209", "State community-association manager licensing regimes (FL, CA/CACM, NV, IL)", "SCRA" ], "data_classifications": [ "Homeowner PII (name, unit, balance) — restricted", "Association governing documents — confidential", "Audit/delivery logs — retained, access-controlled" ] }, "devops": { "ci_cd": "Not applicable at launch-stage manual/semi-manual fulfillment; document-template and rule-matrix changes are version-controlled and attorney-reviewed before use, not continuously deployed.", "environments": [ "Founder-operated production intake/drafting workspace", "Attorney-reviewed rule-matrix staging (pre-activation for any new state)" ], "observability": [ "Per-file audit log (generation, review, correction, delivery timestamps)", "Cycle-time tracking (intake to delivery)", "Escalation-rate tracking (exception queue volume)" ], "testing_pyramid": [ "Red-team statutory edge-case tests before each state goes live", "Gold-standard example library anchoring reviewer training and prompt evaluation", "Sampled spot-check validation once a file type is proven at 100+ reviewed files" ], "accessibility_tests": [ "Landing page contrast and keyboard-walk verification per DESIGN-STANDARD §6/§10", "Screen-reader pass on the diagnostic intake form" ], "performance_budget": "Landing page ≤120KB, zero external requests, LCP ≤2.5s mid-tier mobile, INP ≤200ms, CLS ≤0.1" }, "accessibility_i18n_ethics": { "wcag_target": "WCAG 2.2 AA", "locales": [ "en-US" ], "rtl_support": false, "ethical_risks": [ "Automated drafting proceeding on a low-confidence or disputed account without human confirmation", "A stale Rule Matrix producing a non-compliant notice after an unnoticed statute change" ], "ethical_guardrails": [ "100% human Compliance Analyst review at launch, no exceptions for 90 days", "Rule Matrix freeze on any detected statute-change signal until attorney-reviewed", "Exception Queue routes disputes/bankruptcy/litigation/SCRA to the client's attorney, never automated" ] }, "governance": { "ownership": [ { "area": "Rule Matrix accuracy", "owner": "Compliance lead + retained attorney" }, { "area": "Per-file Compliance Analyst review", "owner": "Compliance Analyst" }, { "area": "Lien-Ready Packet sign-off", "owner": "Client's retained attorney" } ], "docs_required": [ "business-plan.md", "offer-and-pricing.md", "delivery-playbook.md", "ai-engine-spec.md", "compliance-checklist.md" ], "naming_conventions": [ "One concept = one term everywhere: Cure Notice Pack, Deadline Ledger, Lien-Ready Packet, Exception Queue, Statute Checklist, Rule Matrix" ], "change_control": "Any Rule Matrix or prompt-template change is versioned; every delivered file records which Rule Matrix version it was produced against." }, "risk_register": [ { "id": "R1", "risk": "A generated notice omits a required statutory element.", "likelihood": "Low", "impact": "High", "mitigation": "Deterministic rule-engine checklist validation plus human Compliance Analyst sign-off against a state-specific Statute Checklist before every delivery.", "contingency": "Refund the file fee and route the account to the client's attorney for manual re-drafting.", "owner": "Compliance Analyst" }, { "id": "R2", "risk": "A state statute is amended and the Rule Matrix is not updated in time.", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "High", "mitigation": "Monitor legislative-update feeds; freeze new-file production for that state immediately on any detected change signal until attorney-reviewed and re-validated.", "contingency": "Pause all new-file production for that state and notify affected clients of the delay.", "owner": "Compliance Lead" }, { "id": "R3", "risk": "FDCPA applicability is found to extend further than assumed.", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "Medium", "mitigation": "Draft-only MVP design avoids CureClock being the collector of record; default to conservative full-compliance assumptions everywhere.", "contingency": "Engage counsel to review the operating model and adjust the draft-only boundary if needed.", "owner": "Compliance Lead / counsel" }, { "id": "R4", "risk": "Roster data extraction error propagates into a notice.", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "Medium", "mitigation": "Confidence-scored extraction with human confirmation of low-confidence fields; completeness checks before drafting begins.", "contingency": "Re-issue a corrected Cure Notice Pack at no additional charge.", "owner": "Compliance Analyst" }, { "id": "R5", "risk": "Association or CAM company data breach exposes homeowner PII.", "likelihood": "Low", "impact": "High", "mitigation": "Encrypted intake/storage, minimal retention, access-controlled tooling, documented incident-response plan.", "contingency": "Execute the documented incident-response plan and notify affected clients per compliance-checklist.md.", "owner": "Compliance Lead" } ], "roadmap": [ { "phase": "Cycle one (Days 1-30)", "weeks": "Weeks 1-4", "outcomes": [ "Texas rule matrix attorney-reviewed", "First paid Cure Notice Pack files delivered", "5 pilot CAM companies onboarded" ], "exit_criteria": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "kill_criteria": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "phase": "Month 2", "weeks": "Weeks 5-8", "outcomes": [ "10 pilot clients", "Exception-queue triggers and reviewer checklist hardened", "Second-state (FL/CO) rule-matrix evaluation begins" ], "exit_criteria": "Rework rate ≤10% through 10 pilots", "kill_criteria": "Rework rate above 10%" }, { "phase": "Month 3", "weeks": "Weeks 9-12", "outcomes": [ "20 pilot clients, then a hard pause on new onboarding", "Portfolio Deadline-Monitoring Retainer tier launched", "First attorney-referral-partner conversations" ], "exit_criteria": "COGS, rework, escalation, and cycle time measured against targets", "kill_criteria": "Any of the four metrics fails its target at the 20-pilot review" } ], "metrics": { "north_star": "Zero missed statutory deadlines across all active files (hard floor, never traded off for growth)", "leading": [ "Free-scan-to-paid-file conversion rate", "Analyst minutes per file (12→5 target)", "Escalation rate to exception queue (<10% target)" ], "lagging": [ "Gross margin trend toward 50%+ by month 12-18", "Pilot-to-retainer conversion rate", "Rework rate (≤3% post-90-day target)" ], "guardrails": [ "Zero missed statutory deadlines", "100% human review through the first 20 pilot files", "No new state activated without an attorney-reviewed, red-team-tested Rule Matrix" ] }, "executive_review": { "consensus": "GO — clear buyer, verified statutory rigidity, verified competitor/budget validation, and a narrow single-state single-feature MVP wedge fulfillable by a founder-analyst before any custom software is built.", "dissent": "A collections-operations lens would prefer moving to spot-check review sooner to raise throughput; overruled by the zero-missed-deadline hard floor through the first 20 pilot files.", "go_no_go": "GO", "top_3_risks": [ "Missed statutory deadline destroying trust in a compliance-first offer", "Multi-state rule-matrix currency lagging expansion", "FDCPA misclassification if CureClock's draft-only boundary is not held strictly" ], "first_10_steps": [ "Finalize and attorney-review the Texas rule matrix", "Build the secure intake form and Deadline-Risk Scan template", "Outreach to 15-20 warm Texas CAM contacts", "Deliver first free scans", "Convert first paid Cure Notice Pack files", "Publish first 4 content pieces", "Onboard remaining pilot cohort to 5 clients", "Deliver first full Notice-to-Lien-Ready sequence", "Review 5-pilot checkpoint metrics", "Begin 10-pilot exception-queue hardening" ] } }, "project_site": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "app_name": "CureClock", "archetype": "compliance-production-desk", "archetype_label": "Compliance Production Desk", "reader_role": "CAM company principal / collections coordinator", "one_sentence_app": "Upload your delinquency roster; get back a statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger in 24 hours.", "homepage_sequence": [ "Hero + free scan CTA", "Stat strip", "Pain/stakes", "Deliverable cards", "How it works", "Pricing + guarantee", "Proof (honest placeholders)", "FAQ", "Compliance disclaimers", "Blueprint dossier footer link" ], "hero": { "frame_label": "Compliance Production Desk", "eyebrow": "For CAM companies managing Texas HOA/condo delinquency", "interface_title": "Never miss another 45-day cure deadline", "primary_panel_title": "Upload your delinquency roster", "primary_panel_body": "Get a statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger for every newly-delinquent account, reviewed by a compliance analyst, in 24 hours.", "side_panel_title": "What you send us / what you get back", "side_panel_items": [ "Send: delinquency roster, governing documents, collection policy", "Get: Cure Notice Pack PDF + Deadline Ledger", "Get (if unresolved): Lien-Ready Packet for your attorney" ], "status_metric": "45-day", "status_label": "Texas Prop. Code §209.006 cure-notice clock" }, "language": { "problem_heading": "The clock CAM companies can't track by hand", "mechanism_heading": "How the Cure Notice Pack gets built", "proof_heading": "What's verified so far", "offer_heading": "Pricing — flat, per file, never hourly", "objection_heading": "Questions CAM principals actually ask", "qualification_heading": "Who this is (and isn't) for", "cta_close": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan" }, "modules": [ { "name": "Intake & Normalization", "job": "Turn a roster export into a canonical, confidence-scored account record", "artifact": "Normalized delinquency record" }, { "name": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "job": "Ground every draft in the attorney-reviewed state statute and the association's own policy", "artifact": "Applicable Rule Matrix version" }, { "name": "Notice Drafting", "job": "Draft the statute-cited Cure Notice Pack", "artifact": "Cure Notice Pack PDF" }, { "name": "Compliance Review", "job": "Statute-checklist review and sign-off before delivery", "artifact": "Reviewed, approved notice" }, { "name": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "job": "Deliver the pack and track every downstream date", "artifact": "Deadline Ledger" }, { "name": "Lien Readiness", "job": "Assemble the full evidentiary file if the account stays delinquent through the sequence", "artifact": "Lien-Ready Packet" } ], "checkpoints": [ { "label": "5-pilot checkpoint", "pass": "Intake checklist and completeness gates hardened", "fail": "Pause new files until gaps are fixed" }, { "label": "10-pilot checkpoint", "pass": "Exception-queue triggers and reviewer checklist hardened", "fail": "Pause exception-queue automation until re-validated" }, { "label": "20-pilot checkpoint", "pass": "COGS, rework, escalation, and cycle time measured within target", "fail": "Pause all new onboarding until metrics recover" } ], "signature_scene": "A CAM company collections coordinator uploads a delinquency roster on a Monday morning; by Tuesday, every newly-delinquent account has a reviewed Cure Notice Pack and a Deadline Ledger showing the next required date — nothing tracked by hand, nothing missed." }, "ddd": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "project_name": "CureClock — HOA/Condo Assessment Delinquency Notice-Compliance & Pre-Lien Collections Desk", "business_understanding": { "summary": "CureClock produces a dated, cited, lien-ready compliance file for every newly delinquent HOA/condo assessment account, so CAM companies never lose their statutory right to recover collection costs or file a valid lien.", "customer_profile": "CAM company principal or AR/collections lead managing 15-150 associations, or a self-managed board treasurer, operating in a state with a codified multi-step statutory notice regime (Texas at launch).", "customer_pain": "Manual tracking of a statutorily rigid, multi-step notice-and-cure sequence across dozens of simultaneous delinquency files, where a single missed date or malformed notice can forfeit collection-cost recovery, invalidate a lien, or expose the association/CAM company/attorney to FDCPA liability.", "paid_outcome": "A statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger delivered within 24 hours of roster upload, reviewed by a Compliance Analyst; when the account stays delinquent, a complete Lien-Ready Packet for the client's attorney.", "value_creation": "Removes the choice CAM companies currently face between expensive attorney-hour drafting and error-prone manual spreadsheet tracking, at a fraction of the cost and without CureClock ever becoming the collector of record.", "why_ai_native": "The workflow decomposes cleanly into extraction, deterministic rules-application, and citation-grounded templated drafting — near-zero marginal cost per file, with a single human/attorney judgment chokepoint at send/sign/file, and the system gets stronger every time frontier models improve at long-context extraction and grounded drafting.", "operational_risks": [ "A missed statutory deadline destroys trust in a compliance-first offer", "Multi-state rule-matrix currency lags expansion beyond Texas", "FDCPA misclassification if the draft-only boundary is not held strictly" ], "assumptions": [ "A CAM company managing 15+ associations has enough delinquency volume for per-file pricing to matter", "A free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan converts to paid Cure Notice Packs at a meaningful rate", "A CAM company that pilots one association expands to its full portfolio within 90 days if the pilot performs" ], "validation_questions": [ "Does the first pilot cohort hit zero missed deadlines across all files?", "Does the free-scan-to-paid-file conversion rate clear a viable threshold?", "Does at least one pilot client expand past its initial association by day 90?" ] }, "domain_discovery": { "actors": [ { "actor": "CAM company principal", "role": "Economic buyer", "goals": [ "Avoid missed deadlines and FDCPA exposure across the portfolio" ], "decisions": [ "Whether to pilot CureClock" ], "pain_points": [ "Manual spreadsheet tracking across dozens of files" ] }, { "actor": "CAM company collections coordinator", "role": "Champion / day-to-day user", "goals": [ "Get a compliant notice out before the deadline" ], "decisions": [ "Which rosters to upload; when to escalate" ], "pain_points": [ "Tracking a 50-state patchwork of deadlines by hand" ] }, { "actor": "Compliance Analyst", "role": "Human chokepoint / reviewer", "goals": [ "Zero missed statutory elements" ], "decisions": [ "Approve, correct, or escalate every file" ], "pain_points": [ "Reviewing under time pressure without a reliable checklist" ] }, { "actor": "Client's retained attorney", "role": "Legal approver / filer", "goals": [ "File a lien that survives a homeowner challenge" ], "decisions": [ "Approve/file every lien document; resolve every escalation" ], "pain_points": [ "Incomplete packets that force rework before filing" ] }, { "actor": "Delinquent homeowner", "role": "Subject of the workflow, never a CureClock client", "goals": [ "Understand and resolve their balance" ], "decisions": [ "Pay, dispute, or ignore" ], "pain_points": [ "Confusing or inconsistent notices" ] } ], "glossary": [ { "term": "Cure Notice Pack", "definition": "The statute-compliant 45-day pre-collection cure notice plus supporting ledger and Deadline Ledger, delivered as a ready-to-send PDF.", "used_by": "CAM company; Compliance Analyst", "context": "Notice Drafting, Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "example": "A Cure Notice Pack for a $1,250 delinquent Texas account.", "notes": "Never called a 'report' or 'bundle' elsewhere." }, { "term": "Deadline Ledger", "definition": "The dated calendar of every remaining statutory notice date for a DelinquencyFile.", "used_by": [ "CAM company", "Compliance Analyst" ], "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "example": "A Deadline Ledger showing the next credit-reporting disclosure date in 18 days.", "notes": "Never called a 'calendar' or 'schedule' in client-facing copy." }, { "term": "Lien-Ready Packet", "definition": "The complete evidentiary file (ledger, every notice, proof of timing, legal description) assembled for the client's attorney once a file completes its Notice Sequence unresolved.", "used_by": [ "Client's attorney", "Compliance Analyst" ], "context": "Lien Readiness", "example": "A Lien-Ready Packet handed off to Tinnelly Law Group for filing.", "notes": "Never called a 'lien file' or 'collections file'." }, { "term": "Rule Matrix", "definition": "The versioned, attorney-reviewed set of a state's statutory notice-and-cure requirements.", "used_by": [ "Compliance Lead", "Retained attorney" ], "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "example": "The Texas Rule Matrix version dated 2026-06-01.", "notes": "Never called a 'rule set' or 'compliance database'." }, { "term": "Exception Queue", "definition": "The routing lane for any account showing dispute, bankruptcy, litigation, or SCRA-protection signs.", "used_by": [ "Compliance Analyst" ], "context": "Exception & Escalation", "example": "An account with an active bankruptcy filing routed to the Exception Queue.", "notes": "Never automated past this point." }, { "term": "Statute Checklist", "definition": "The state-specific checklist a Compliance Analyst reviews every drafted notice against before approval.", "used_by": [ "Compliance Analyst" ], "context": "Compliance Review", "example": "The Texas Statute Checklist for the 45-day cure notice.", "notes": "One checklist per active state per notice type." } ], "decisions": [ { "decision": "Approve or escalate a drafted notice", "who": "Compliance Analyst", "inputs": [ "Drafted notice", "Statute Checklist", "Source roster data" ], "rule": "Approve only if every required statutory element is present and cited; escalate on any dispute/bankruptcy/litigation/SCRA signal", "output": "NoticeApproved or ExceptionRaised", "risk": "Missed statutory element if the checklist is skipped" }, { "decision": "Activate a new state's Rule Matrix", "who": "Compliance Lead + retained attorney", "inputs": [ "Drafted Rule Matrix", "Red-team edge-case test results" ], "rule": "Only after attorney review and red-team testing pass", "output": "RuleMatrixVersionUpdated (active)", "risk": "A non-compliant notice if activated prematurely" }, { "decision": "File or record a lien", "who": "Client's retained attorney", "inputs": [ "Lien-Ready Packet" ], "rule": "Only the attorney signs and files; CureClock never does", "output": "AttorneyHandoffLogged, then filed externally", "risk": "Unauthorized practice of law if this boundary is not held" } ], "events": [ { "event": "AccountFlagged", "meaning": "A delinquent account is identified from an uploaded roster", "trigger": "Roster upload processed", "downstream": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "event": "NoticeDrafted", "meaning": "The AI has produced a citation-grounded draft notice", "trigger": "Rule Matrix retrieval + LLM drafting complete", "downstream": "Compliance Review begins" }, { "event": "ExceptionRaised", "meaning": "An account is routed out of the automated pipeline", "trigger": "Dispute/bankruptcy/litigation/SCRA signal detected", "downstream": "Client's attorney notified" }, { "event": "NoticeDelivered", "meaning": "The client has received the approved Cure Notice Pack", "trigger": "Delivery timestamp logged", "downstream": "Deadline Ledger updated with the next required date" }, { "event": "LienPacketAssembled", "meaning": "A complete Lien-Ready Packet is ready for attorney handoff", "trigger": "Full Notice Sequence completed unresolved", "downstream": "Attorney review and filing" } ] }, "subdomains": [ { "name": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "type": "Core", "description": "The maintained, version-controlled, attorney-reviewed statutory rule set that grounds every draft.", "reason": "This is the durable moat — a generic chatbot cannot maintain a 50-state, audited rule matrix.", "business_value": "Directly protects the zero-missed-deadline guarantee and the compliance-vendor trust position.", "recommendation": "Invest here first and keep it in-house.", "ai_involvement": "Monitors legislative-update feeds; humans confirm and version every change.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Lead + retained attorney approve every version.", "risks": [ "Stale statute produces a non-compliant notice" ], "validation_questions": [ "Is the Texas matrix current as of the last legislative session?" ] }, { "name": "Notice Drafting", "type": "Core", "description": "Citation-grounded LLM drafting of every required notice, ledger, and packet element.", "reason": "The AI-native advantage over manual mail-merge letters.", "business_value": "Cuts per-file cost to a fraction of attorney-hour drafting.", "recommendation": "Invest here; keep model-agnostic per the Model Portability layer.", "ai_involvement": "Drafts every notice grounded in the Rule Matrix and roster data.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Analyst reviews, never drafts blind.", "risks": [ "A drafted notice omits a required statutory element" ], "validation_questions": [ "Does every draft carry an inline statutory citation?" ] }, { "name": "Compliance Review", "type": "Core", "description": "100% human review against a state-specific Statute Checklist before delivery.", "reason": "Trust is the entire value proposition; this is the sign-off chokepoint.", "business_value": "Zero-missed-deadline guarantee depends on this gate.", "recommendation": "Never fully automate; only ease to spot-check after 100+ reviewed files per state.", "ai_involvement": "AI self-check pre-filters low-risk files for the analyst.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Analyst final sign-off on every file.", "risks": [ "Missed statutory element slips past review under time pressure" ], "validation_questions": [ "Is the rework rate trending toward the 3% post-90-day target?" ] }, { "name": "Lien Readiness", "type": "Core", "description": "Assembling the complete evidentiary file for attorney handoff.", "reason": "The audit trail that survives a homeowner's legal challenge.", "business_value": "Protects both the client's legal defensibility and CureClock's liability position.", "recommendation": "Always attorney-reviewed, never spot-checked.", "ai_involvement": "Pre-assembles the packet from the completed Notice Sequence.", "human_involvement": "Client's retained attorney reviews and files every packet.", "risks": [ "Invalid lien if the packet is incomplete" ], "validation_questions": [ "Does every packet include proof of timing for every notice in the sequence?" ] }, { "name": "Intake & Normalization", "type": "Supporting", "description": "Turning a roster export into a canonical, confidence-scored record.", "reason": "Necessary but not differentiating on its own — many tools can parse a CSV.", "business_value": "Feeds every downstream context with clean data.", "recommendation": "Automate over time; keep low-confidence fields gated to human confirmation.", "ai_involvement": "Confidence-scored field extraction.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Analyst confirms low-confidence fields.", "risks": [ "Wrong balance/date propagates into a notice" ], "validation_questions": [ "What's the current false-low-confidence rate?" ] }, { "name": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "type": "Supporting", "description": "PDF delivery and the Deadline Ledger tracking every downstream date.", "reason": "Operationally necessary; could later become a differentiating portfolio dashboard product.", "business_value": "Guarantees no file is ever missed across hundreds of simultaneous accounts.", "recommendation": "Automate as volume grows into a full portfolio dashboard.", "ai_involvement": "Schedules the next-notice trigger.", "human_involvement": "Client sends/signs under its own name.", "risks": [ "A scheduled trigger is missed" ], "validation_questions": [ "What's the cycle time trend against the 24-48 hour target?" ] }, { "name": "Exception & Escalation", "type": "Core", "description": "Routing disputed/bankrupt/litigated/SCRA accounts out of the automated pipeline.", "reason": "The safety valve that keeps the automated pipeline from touching cases it should never touch.", "business_value": "Prevents the highest-impact failure modes (bankruptcy/SCRA mishandling).", "recommendation": "Never automate the escalation decision itself.", "ai_involvement": "Flags likely exceptions for analyst confirmation.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Analyst confirms and routes; attorney resolves.", "risks": [ "Misclassified exception proceeds through the automated pipeline" ], "validation_questions": [ "Is the escalation rate trending under the 10% target?" ] }, { "name": "Learning Loop", "type": "Generic", "description": "Converting corrections into versioned rule-matrix/prompt updates.", "reason": "Generic to any compliance-production business; not a differentiator by itself, but required hygiene.", "business_value": "Keeps quality improving without ad hoc patches.", "recommendation": "Build simply; do not over-invest before volume justifies it.", "ai_involvement": "None directly; consumes human correction data.", "human_involvement": "Compliance Lead approves versioned updates.", "risks": [ "A recurring correction pattern is missed and re-occurs" ], "validation_questions": [ "How many corrections have become versioned updates so far?" ] } ], "core_domain_analysis": { "primary_core": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval — the maintained, attorney-reviewed, version-controlled statutory rule set that grounds every draft and freezes production on any detected change.", "secondary_cores": [ "Compliance Review (the 100%-human trust chokepoint)", "Lien Readiness (the audit-trail evidentiary assembly)", "Exception & Escalation (the safety valve for bankruptcy/SCRA/litigation)" ], "supporting_may_become_core": [ "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring — could become a differentiating portfolio-wide dashboard product as volume grows" ], "generic_do_not_distract": [ "Learning Loop (standard correction-to-version hygiene, not a differentiator)", "Intake & Normalization (parsing a roster export is not itself defensible)" ], "rationale": "If a future frontier model makes single-state notice drafting trivial for any property manager, CureClock's durable value is entirely in the maintained Rule Matrix, the 100%-review trust chokepoint, and the audit-trail assembly — none of which a generic chatbot response replaces." }, "bounded_contexts": [ { "name": "Intake & Normalization", "purpose": "Turn an uploaded delinquency roster into canonical, confidence-scored DelinquencyFile records.", "subdomain": "Intake & Normalization", "type": "Supporting", "owned_language": [ "'Intake & Normalization' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Raw roster rows", "Confidence scores", "Normalized account records" ], "does_not_own": [ "Statutory deadline computation", "Notice drafting" ], "primary_actors": [ "CAM company collections coordinator" ], "entities": [ "DelinquencyFile" ], "value_objects": [ "Money (balance)", "Deadline/Window (aging)", "SLA" ], "aggregates": [ "DelinquencyFile" ], "domain_services": [ "FieldExtractionService" ], "application_services": [ "RosterIntakeService" ], "commands": [ "SubmitRoster", "ConfirmLowConfidenceField" ], "domain_events": [ "AccountFlagged", "FieldsNormalized" ], "policies": [ "Any field below the confidence threshold must be analyst-confirmed before drafting" ], "specifications": [ "A DelinquencyFile cannot proceed to Rule Matrix retrieval while any required field is unconfirmed" ], "invariants": [ "A DelinquencyFile's confidence-scored fields are immutable once confirmed, except via a logged correction" ], "ai_agents": [ "Field-extraction AI agent" ], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Analyst (low-confidence confirmation)" ], "data_owned": [ "DelinquencyFile.raw", "DelinquencyFile.normalized" ], "inputs": [ "Delinquency roster export", "Governing documents", "Collection policy" ], "outputs": [ "Normalized DelinquencyFile record" ], "external_integrations": [ "CAM company roster export (AppFolio/Vantaca/CINC/spreadsheet)" ], "risks": [ "Wrong balance/date propagates into a legal notice if a low-confidence field is not confirmed" ], "interfaces": [ "Secure upload form" ] }, { "name": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "purpose": "Maintain and serve the versioned, attorney-reviewed state statutory notice-and-cure rule set.", "subdomain": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "type": "Core", "owned_language": [ "'Rule Matrix & Retrieval' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Statutory requirement text", "Timing windows", "Delivery-method requirements", "Version history" ], "does_not_own": [ "Notice drafting language", "Client communications" ], "primary_actors": [ "Compliance Lead", "Retained attorney (reviewer)" ], "entities": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "value_objects": [ "Statute/Form/Code refs", "Deadline/Window" ], "aggregates": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "domain_services": [ "RuleMatrixService" ], "application_services": [ "RuleMatrixService" ], "commands": [ "ActivateRuleMatrixVersion", "FreezeRuleMatrixForState" ], "domain_events": [ "RuleMatrixVersionUpdated", "RuleMatrixFrozen" ], "policies": [ "Any detected statute-change signal freezes new-file production for that state until re-validated" ], "specifications": [ "A new state cannot go live without attorney review and red-team edge-case testing" ], "invariants": [ "No DelinquencyFile may draft against a Rule Matrix version flagged 'under revision'" ], "ai_agents": [ "Legislative-update monitoring agent" ], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Lead", "Retained attorney (final sign-off on statute changes)" ], "data_owned": [ "RuleMatrixVersion (per state)" ], "inputs": [ "Legislative-update feeds", "Attorney review notes" ], "outputs": [ "Active Rule Matrix version for a given state" ], "external_integrations": [ "State legislative-update feeds" ], "risks": [ "Stale statute produces a non-compliant notice" ], "interfaces": [ "Internal retrieval API used by Notice Drafting" ] }, { "name": "Notice Drafting", "purpose": "Draft each required notice, ledger, and packet element grounded in the retrieved Rule Matrix and roster data, with inline statutory citations.", "subdomain": "Notice Drafting", "type": "Core", "owned_language": [ "'Notice Drafting' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Notice text", "Statutory citations" ], "does_not_own": [ "Delivery, review approval" ], "primary_actors": [ "Compliance Analyst (reviewer, not owner)" ], "entities": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "value_objects": [ "Money", "Deadline/Window", "Statute/Form/Code refs" ], "aggregates": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "domain_services": [ "NoticeDraftingService" ], "application_services": [ "NoticeDraftingService" ], "commands": [ "DraftNotice" ], "domain_events": [ "NoticeDrafted" ], "policies": [ "A notice is never drafted for an account with an open Exception Queue flag" ], "specifications": [ "Every drafted clause must carry an inline citation to the statutory section it satisfies" ], "invariants": [ "A NoticeSequence's next notice cannot be drafted before the prior notice's delivery timestamp is logged, where the statute requires sequential spacing" ], "ai_agents": [ "Notice Drafting Agent (LLM, retrieval-grounded)" ], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Analyst (reviews output, does not draft)" ], "data_owned": [ "NoticeSequence.drafts" ], "inputs": [ "Normalized DelinquencyFile", "Active RuleMatrixVersion" ], "outputs": [ "Draft notice text with citations" ], "external_integrations": [ "LLM API" ], "risks": [ "A drafted notice omits a required statutory element" ], "interfaces": [ "Internal drafting API used by Compliance Review" ] }, { "name": "Compliance Review", "purpose": "Gate every drafted notice through a Compliance Analyst's statute-checklist review before delivery.", "subdomain": "Compliance Review", "type": "Core", "owned_language": [ "'Compliance Review' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Review outcomes", "Exception triage decisions" ], "does_not_own": [ "Statutory rule authorship", "Final legal filing decisions" ], "primary_actors": [ "Compliance Analyst" ], "entities": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "value_objects": [ "Status/state labels (Intake → Evidence → Review → Release)" ], "aggregates": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "domain_services": [], "application_services": [ "ComplianceReviewService" ], "commands": [ "ApproveNotice", "RaiseException" ], "domain_events": [ "NoticeReviewed", "NoticeApproved", "ExceptionRaised" ], "policies": [ "100% of files are reviewed by a Compliance Analyst through at least the first 20 pilot files, regardless of AI confidence score" ], "specifications": [ "No file is delivered with an open completeness-check flag" ], "invariants": [ "An ExceptionCase cannot close without a logged escalation decision" ], "ai_agents": [ "AI self-check agent (pre-filters low-risk files for the analyst)" ], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Analyst (reviewer + sign-off)" ], "data_owned": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "inputs": [ "Drafted NoticeSequence" ], "outputs": [ "Approved notice or raised exception" ], "external_integrations": [], "risks": [ "Missed statutory element slips past review" ], "interfaces": [ "Internal review queue used by Delivery" ] }, { "name": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "purpose": "Deliver the approved Cure Notice Pack and track every downstream statutory date on the Deadline Ledger.", "subdomain": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "type": "Supporting", "owned_language": [ "'Delivery & Deadline Monitoring' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Delivery timestamps", "Deadline Ledger entries" ], "does_not_own": [ "Notice content authorship" ], "primary_actors": [ "CAM company collections coordinator (recipient/sender)" ], "entities": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "value_objects": [ "Deadline/Window", "SLA" ], "aggregates": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "domain_services": [ "DeadlineMonitoringService" ], "application_services": [ "DeliveryService" ], "commands": [ "DeliverNotice", "ScheduleNextNotice" ], "domain_events": [ "NoticeDelivered", "DeadlineApproaching", "NextNoticeTriggered" ], "policies": [ "Every remaining required notice must have a Deadline Ledger entry before a file is marked delivered" ], "specifications": [ "A file cannot be marked 'delivered' without a logged delivery timestamp" ], "invariants": [ "Every DelinquencyFile in flight has at least one open Deadline Ledger entry until closed or escalated" ], "ai_agents": [], "human_roles": [ "CAM company staff (sends/signs under own letterhead)" ], "data_owned": [ "NoticeSequence.deliveryLog" ], "inputs": [ "Approved notice" ], "outputs": [ "Delivered PDF pack + Deadline Ledger" ], "external_integrations": [ "Client email/portal" ], "risks": [ "A scheduled next-notice trigger is missed" ], "interfaces": [ "Client-facing delivery notification" ] }, { "name": "Exception & Escalation", "purpose": "Route disputed, bankrupt, litigated, or SCRA-protected accounts to the client's retained attorney instead of the automated pipeline.", "subdomain": "Exception & Escalation", "type": "Core", "owned_language": [ "'Exception & Escalation' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Exception triage decisions", "Escalation routing" ], "does_not_own": [ "Automated drafting for a flagged account (explicitly forbidden)" ], "primary_actors": [ "Compliance Analyst", "Client's retained attorney" ], "entities": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "value_objects": [ "Status/state labels" ], "aggregates": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "domain_services": [], "application_services": [], "commands": [ "RouteToAttorney" ], "domain_events": [ "ExceptionRaised" ], "policies": [ "Any dispute/bankruptcy/litigation/SCRA flag routes to the client's attorney the same business day" ], "specifications": [ "An ExceptionCase can never be auto-resolved by the drafting pipeline" ], "invariants": [ "An account flagged for bankruptcy or SCRA protection can never re-enter the automated pipeline without an attorney clearance" ], "ai_agents": [ "Exception-detection AI agent (flags likely exceptions for analyst confirmation)" ], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Analyst (confirms + routes)", "Client's attorney (resolves)" ], "data_owned": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "inputs": [ "Normalized DelinquencyFile with a flagged condition" ], "outputs": [ "Escalation record" ], "external_integrations": [], "risks": [ "Misclassified exception proceeds through the automated pipeline" ], "interfaces": [ "Internal escalation queue" ] }, { "name": "Lien Readiness", "purpose": "Assemble the Lien-Ready Packet once a DelinquencyFile completes its full Notice Sequence unresolved.", "subdomain": "Lien Readiness", "type": "Core", "owned_language": [ "'Lien Readiness' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Lien-Ready Packet assembly" ], "does_not_own": [ "Filing or recording a lien (always the client's attorney's action)" ], "primary_actors": [ "Client's retained attorney" ], "entities": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "value_objects": [ "Statute/Form/Code refs", "Money" ], "aggregates": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "domain_services": [ "LienPacketService" ], "application_services": [ "LienPacketService" ], "commands": [ "AssemblePacket", "LogAttorneyHandoff" ], "domain_events": [ "LienPacketAssembled", "AttorneyHandoffLogged" ], "policies": [ "A Lien-Ready Packet is never marked ready without every notice in its sequence carrying a delivery timestamp and Compliance Review approval" ], "specifications": [ "Packet completeness is verified against the full NoticeSequence before handoff" ], "invariants": [ "A LienReadyPacket cannot be marked 'ready for attorney handoff' unless every notice passed Compliance Review" ], "ai_agents": [], "human_roles": [ "Client's retained attorney (reviews + files, always)" ], "data_owned": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "inputs": [ "Completed NoticeSequence" ], "outputs": [ "Assembled packet for attorney review" ], "external_integrations": [], "risks": [ "Invalid lien if the packet is incomplete" ], "interfaces": [ "Attorney handoff interface (secure delivery)" ] }, { "name": "Learning Loop", "purpose": "Convert every human correction into a versioned Rule Matrix or prompt-template update.", "subdomain": "Learning Loop", "type": "Generic", "owned_language": [ "'Learning Loop' always means the same thing here as on the landing page and in delivery-playbook.md" ], "owns": [ "Correction history", "Prompt/rule-matrix version changes" ], "does_not_own": [ "Live-file processing" ], "primary_actors": [ "Compliance Lead" ], "entities": [], "value_objects": [], "aggregates": [], "domain_services": [], "application_services": [], "commands": [ "CommitCorrection" ], "domain_events": [], "policies": [ "No correction is patched ad hoc for a single client and forgotten" ], "specifications": [], "invariants": [ "Every versioned Rule Matrix or prompt change is traceable to the correction that triggered it" ], "ai_agents": [], "human_roles": [ "Compliance Lead (approves versioned updates)" ], "data_owned": [], "inputs": [ "Analyst corrections", "Statute-change signals" ], "outputs": [ "Versioned Rule Matrix/prompt update" ], "external_integrations": [], "risks": [ "A recurring correction pattern is missed and re-occurs across multiple files" ], "interfaces": [] } ], "context_map": [ { "upstream": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "downstream": "Notice Drafting", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Published Language (versioned Rule Matrix API)", "translation_notes": "Notice Drafting never re-derives statutory timing; it always retrieves the active version.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "Internal versioned data contract", "data_exchanged": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "events_exchanged": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "ownership_boundary": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval owns all statutory interpretation", "acl_notes": "Notice Drafting treats the Rule Matrix as the single source of truth; no local overrides.", "business_reason": "Prevents drift between what's drafted and what's legally required.", "failure_risks": [ "Notice Drafting uses a stale cached version if the freeze signal is missed" ] }, { "upstream": "Notice Drafting", "downstream": "Compliance Review", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Shared event (NoticeDrafted)", "translation_notes": "Draft is always treated as unapproved until Compliance Review signs off.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "Internal event contract", "data_exchanged": "Drafted notice + citations", "events_exchanged": "NoticeDrafted", "ownership_boundary": "Compliance Review owns the approval decision, never Notice Drafting", "acl_notes": "No auto-approval path exists.", "business_reason": "Preserves the 100%-human-review trust guarantee.", "failure_risks": [ "A drafted notice bypasses review due to a pipeline bug" ] }, { "upstream": "Compliance Review", "downstream": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Shared event (NoticeApproved)", "translation_notes": "Only approved notices are eligible for delivery.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "Internal event contract", "data_exchanged": "Approved notice", "events_exchanged": "NoticeApproved", "ownership_boundary": "Delivery owns timestamps and Deadline Ledger scheduling", "acl_notes": "Delivery does not re-review content.", "business_reason": "Separates review responsibility from delivery mechanics.", "failure_risks": [ "Delivery timestamp not logged, breaking the audit trail" ] }, { "upstream": "Compliance Review", "downstream": "Exception & Escalation", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Shared event (ExceptionRaised)", "translation_notes": "An exception always removes the file from the standard pipeline.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "Internal event contract", "data_exchanged": "Flagged account + reason", "events_exchanged": "ExceptionRaised", "ownership_boundary": "Exception & Escalation owns routing to the client's attorney", "acl_notes": "No automated re-entry to the standard pipeline without attorney clearance.", "business_reason": "Keeps dispute/bankruptcy/SCRA cases out of automated drafting entirely.", "failure_risks": [ "A misclassified exception proceeds through the automated pipeline" ] }, { "upstream": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "downstream": "Lien Readiness", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Shared event (NextNoticeTriggered exhausted / AccountResolved absent)", "translation_notes": "Only a fully-delivered, unresolved Notice Sequence triggers packet assembly.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "Internal event contract", "data_exchanged": "Completed NoticeSequence", "events_exchanged": "LienPacketAssembled", "ownership_boundary": "Lien Readiness owns packet completeness verification", "acl_notes": "Never assembles from a partially-delivered sequence.", "business_reason": "Guarantees the packet is defensible before attorney handoff.", "failure_risks": [ "Packet assembled before the sequence is truly complete" ] }, { "upstream": "Compliance Review", "downstream": "Learning Loop", "relationship": "Partnership", "integration_pattern": "Shared event (analyst correction logged)", "translation_notes": "Every correction is a versioned input, never a silent patch.", "pattern": "Shared Kernel (correction taxonomy)", "contract_type": "Internal event contract", "data_exchanged": "Correction record", "events_exchanged": "N/A (internal correction log)", "ownership_boundary": "Learning Loop owns the versioning of Rule Matrix/prompt updates", "acl_notes": "No context bypasses the Learning Loop to patch behavior directly.", "business_reason": "Prevents one-off fixes from silently diverging across clients.", "failure_risks": [ "A recurring correction pattern is missed and re-occurs" ] } ], "external_integrations": [ { "system": "CAM company property-management software (AppFolio/Vantaca/CINC)", "direction": "Inbound", "pattern": "File export/upload", "risk": "Format drift between exports", "owner_context": "Intake & Normalization", "data_in": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "data_out": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "trigger": "Client-initiated upload", "internal_model": "Canonical DelinquencyFile schema", "acl_strategy": "Anti-corruption layer normalizes varying export formats to the canonical schema", "failure_strategy": "Malformed export routes to manual analyst review rather than silent misparse", "audit_need": "Every upload logged with source format and timestamp" }, { "system": "LLM API provider", "direction": "Outbound/Inbound", "pattern": "Synchronous API call, retrieval-grounded", "risk": "Hallucinated statutory claim not grounded in the Rule Matrix", "owner_context": "Notice Drafting", "data_in": "Drafting prompt + retrieved Rule Matrix excerpt", "data_out": "Drafted notice text with citations", "trigger": "NoticeDrafted request", "internal_model": "Prompt library, versioned independently of the model vendor", "acl_strategy": "Retrieval-first hallucination control — no free-form statutory claim without a cited Rule Matrix fact", "failure_strategy": "Failed or ungrounded draft routes to manual analyst drafting", "audit_need": "Every AI drafting call logged with prompt version, retrieval source, and output" }, { "system": "Client's retained attorney (external, human)", "direction": "Outbound", "pattern": "Secure handoff (portal/email)", "risk": "Incomplete packet forces rework before filing", "owner_context": "Lien Readiness / Exception & Escalation", "data_in": "N/A", "data_out": "Lien-Ready Packet or escalated ExceptionCase", "trigger": "LienPacketAssembled or ExceptionRaised", "internal_model": "N/A — attorney is external, human, and authoritative on filing decisions", "acl_strategy": "CureClock never assumes attorney sign-off; always waits for an explicit AttorneyHandoffLogged confirmation", "failure_strategy": "Packet held pending attorney response; never auto-filed", "audit_need": "Every handoff and attorney response timestamped" } ], "event_storm": [ { "seq": 1, "command": "SubmitRoster", "event": "AccountFlagged", "actor": "CAM company collections coordinator", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "aggregate": "DelinquencyFile", "policy": "Any account past the association's delinquency threshold is flagged", "downstream": "Normalization begins", "risk": "A roster row is silently dropped during parsing" }, { "seq": 2, "command": "ConfirmLowConfidenceField", "event": "FieldsNormalized", "actor": "Compliance Analyst", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "aggregate": "DelinquencyFile", "policy": "Low-confidence fields require analyst confirmation before drafting", "downstream": "Rule Matrix retrieval begins", "risk": "An unconfirmed field proceeds to drafting" }, { "seq": 3, "command": "ComputeDeadlineSequence", "event": "DeadlineSequenceComputed", "actor": "Rule Engine (deterministic)", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "aggregate": "RuleMatrixVersion", "policy": "Deadline math is never left to the LLM", "downstream": "Notice drafting begins", "risk": "Wrong Rule Matrix version applied" }, { "seq": 4, "command": "DraftNotice", "event": "NoticeDrafted", "actor": "Notice Drafting Agent (LLM)", "context": "Notice Drafting", "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "policy": "Every clause must carry an inline statutory citation", "downstream": "Compliance Review begins", "risk": "Drafted notice omits a required statutory element" }, { "seq": 5, "command": "ApproveNotice / RaiseException", "event": "NoticeApproved / ExceptionRaised", "actor": "Compliance Analyst", "context": "Compliance Review", "aggregate": "NoticeSequence / ExceptionCase", "policy": "100% human review through the first 20 pilot files", "downstream": "Delivery, or attorney escalation", "risk": "Missed statutory element slips past review" }, { "seq": 6, "command": "DeliverNotice", "event": "NoticeDelivered", "actor": "CAM company staff", "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "policy": "Client sends/signs under its own letterhead — CureClock never contacts the homeowner", "downstream": "Deadline Ledger updated", "risk": "Delivery timestamp not logged" }, { "seq": 7, "command": "ScheduleNextNotice", "event": "NextNoticeTriggered", "actor": "Deadline Monitoring Service", "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "policy": "Next notice triggers as its statutory date approaches", "downstream": "Next drafting cycle, or Lien Readiness if sequence exhausted", "risk": "A scheduled trigger is missed" }, { "seq": 8, "command": "AssemblePacket", "event": "LienPacketAssembled", "actor": "Lien Packet Service", "context": "Lien Readiness", "aggregate": "LienReadyPacket", "policy": "Only assembled once every notice in the sequence is delivered and approved", "downstream": "Attorney handoff", "risk": "Invalid lien if the packet is incomplete" } ], "critical_path": [ "roster.uploaded -> account.flagged -> fields.normalized -> deadline.computed -> notice.drafted -> notice.reviewed -> notice.approved -> notice.delivered -> deadline.next_triggered -> (account.resolved | lien.packet_assembled -> attorney.handoff_logged)" ], "exception_flows": [ "A dispute, bankruptcy, active-litigation, or SCRA-protection signal on a normalized account -> routed to the Exception Queue, blocks automated drafting until the client's attorney resolves it" ], "escalation_flows": [ "A notice failing the Compliance Analyst's statute-checklist review -> corrected and re-reviewed, or escalated to the Compliance Lead if the issue is a Rule Matrix gap" ], "retry_flows": [ "A failed LLM drafting call -> automatic single retry; unresolved -> routes to manual analyst drafting from the template library and Rule Matrix directly" ], "manual_override_flows": [ "Compliance Lead can force-hold any DelinquencyFile pre-delivery regardless of an automated completeness pass, if a data-integrity issue is suspected" ], "commands": [ { "name": "SubmitRoster", "issued_by": "CAM company collections coordinator", "preconditions": [ "Client account verified" ], "aggregate": "DelinquencyFile", "success_event": "AccountFlagged", "failure_event": "RosterRejected (malformed export)", "authorization": "Verified CAM company client account", "validation": "Schema validation against the canonical roster format", "audit": "Upload timestamp and source format logged" }, { "name": "ConfirmLowConfidenceField", "issued_by": "Compliance Analyst", "preconditions": [ "Field flagged below confidence threshold" ], "aggregate": "DelinquencyFile", "success_event": "FieldsNormalized", "failure_event": "N/A — analyst always resolves or requests client clarification", "authorization": "Compliance Analyst role", "validation": "Analyst cross-check against source roster", "audit": "Analyst ID and confirmation timestamp logged" }, { "name": "DraftNotice", "issued_by": "Notice Drafting Agent (system-issued)", "preconditions": [ "Fields normalized", "Active, non-frozen Rule Matrix version", "No open Exception Queue flag" ], "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "success_event": "NoticeDrafted", "failure_event": "DraftingFailed (routes to manual analyst drafting)", "authorization": "System-internal, triggered by DeadlineSequenceComputed", "validation": "AI self-check against retrieved statute and roster data", "audit": "Prompt version and retrieval sources logged" }, { "name": "ApproveNotice", "issued_by": "Compliance Analyst", "preconditions": [ "Notice drafted", "Statute Checklist satisfied" ], "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "success_event": "NoticeApproved", "failure_event": "ExceptionRaised (if a flag is found during review)", "authorization": "Compliance Analyst role, 100% of files at launch", "validation": "State-specific Statute Checklist", "audit": "Reviewer ID and checklist result logged" }, { "name": "DeliverNotice", "issued_by": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring service", "preconditions": [ "Notice approved" ], "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "success_event": "NoticeDelivered", "failure_event": "DeliveryFailed (retry once, then analyst notified)", "authorization": "System-internal, triggered by NoticeApproved", "validation": "Delivery-channel confirmation", "audit": "Delivery timestamp logged" }, { "name": "AssemblePacket", "issued_by": "Lien Packet Service", "preconditions": [ "Full Notice Sequence delivered and approved, unresolved" ], "aggregate": "LienReadyPacket", "success_event": "LienPacketAssembled", "failure_event": "PacketIncomplete (returns to Lien Readiness for correction)", "authorization": "System-internal, triggered by sequence exhaustion", "validation": "Completeness check against every notice in the sequence", "audit": "Assembly timestamp and completeness check logged" }, { "name": "RouteToAttorney", "issued_by": "Compliance Analyst", "preconditions": [ "Dispute/bankruptcy/litigation/SCRA signal detected" ], "aggregate": "ExceptionCase", "success_event": "ExceptionRaised", "failure_event": "N/A", "authorization": "Compliance Analyst role", "validation": "Exception-trigger checklist", "audit": "Escalation reason and routing timestamp logged" }, { "name": "ActivateRuleMatrixVersion", "issued_by": "Compliance Lead", "preconditions": [ "Attorney review complete", "Red-team edge-case testing passed" ], "aggregate": "RuleMatrixVersion", "success_event": "RuleMatrixVersionUpdated", "failure_event": "ActivationBlocked (attorney review incomplete)", "authorization": "Compliance Lead + attorney sign-off", "validation": "Red-team edge-case test suite", "audit": "Attorney reviewer and version date logged" } ], "policies": [ { "name": "Freeze on statute-change signal", "trigger": "Legislative-update monitoring detects a possible statute change", "condition": "Any detected change signal for an active state", "action": "Freeze new-file production for that state until re-validated", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "ai_involvement": "Monitoring agent detects the signal", "human_approval": "Compliance Lead + attorney re-validate before unfreezing" }, { "name": "100% human review at launch", "trigger": "Every drafted notice", "condition": "Through at least the first 20 pilot files", "action": "Route to Compliance Analyst for statute-checklist review, regardless of AI confidence score", "context": "Compliance Review", "ai_involvement": "AI self-check pre-filters low-risk files", "human_approval": "Compliance Analyst sign-off required, no exceptions" }, { "name": "Exception-first routing", "trigger": "Dispute, bankruptcy, active litigation, or SCRA-protection signal", "condition": "Detected during Normalization or Compliance Review", "action": "Route to the client's retained attorney the same business day", "context": "Exception & Escalation", "ai_involvement": "Exception-detection agent flags likely cases", "human_approval": "Compliance Analyst confirms and routes; attorney resolves" }, { "name": "Never spot-check Lien-Ready Packets", "trigger": "Any Lien-Ready Packet assembly", "condition": "Always, regardless of automation maturity elsewhere", "action": "Route to the client's attorney for full review before filing", "context": "Lien Readiness", "ai_involvement": "Pre-assembles the packet", "human_approval": "Attorney review mandatory, every packet, no exceptions" } ], "aggregates": [ { "name": "DelinquencyFile", "root": "DelinquencyFile", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "purpose": "Track one delinquent account through its full notice cycle", "entities": [ "DelinquencyFile" ], "value_objects": [ "Money (balance)", "Deadline/Window (aging)" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot advance past Compliance Review without a logged analyst sign-off", "Cannot be marked delivered without a Deadline Ledger entry for every remaining required notice" ], "commands": [ "SubmitRoster", "ConfirmLowConfidenceField" ], "events": [ "AccountFlagged", "FieldsNormalized" ], "repository": "DelinquencyFileRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One DelinquencyFile per transaction; roster batches process file-by-file" }, { "name": "NoticeSequence", "root": "NoticeSequence", "context": "Notice Drafting", "purpose": "The ordered set of required notices for one DelinquencyFile under its Rule Matrix version", "entities": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "value_objects": [ "Statute/Form/Code refs", "SLA" ], "invariants": [ "Notice N+1 cannot draft before notice N's delivery timestamp is logged where sequential spacing is required" ], "commands": [ "DraftNotice", "ApproveNotice", "DeliverNotice" ], "events": [ "NoticeDrafted", "NoticeReviewed", "NoticeApproved", "NoticeDelivered" ], "repository": "NoticeSequenceRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One notice event per transaction within a sequence" }, { "name": "RuleMatrixVersion", "root": "RuleMatrixVersion", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "purpose": "The versioned, attorney-reviewed statutory rule set for one state", "entities": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "value_objects": [ "Statute/Form/Code refs" ], "invariants": [ "No DelinquencyFile may draft against a version flagged 'under revision'" ], "commands": [ "ActivateRuleMatrixVersion" ], "events": [ "RuleMatrixVersionUpdated", "RuleMatrixFrozen" ], "repository": "RuleMatrixRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One version activation per transaction, state-scoped" }, { "name": "ExceptionCase", "root": "ExceptionCase", "context": "Exception & Escalation", "purpose": "A DelinquencyFile routed out of the automated pipeline", "entities": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "value_objects": [ "Status/state labels" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot close without a logged escalation decision and, where applicable, an attorney review timestamp" ], "commands": [ "RouteToAttorney" ], "events": [ "ExceptionRaised" ], "repository": "ExceptionCaseRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One case per transaction" }, { "name": "LienReadyPacket", "root": "LienReadyPacket", "context": "Lien Readiness", "purpose": "The complete evidentiary file assembled once a DelinquencyFile's Notice Sequence completes unresolved", "entities": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "value_objects": [ "Money", "Statute/Form/Code refs" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot be marked 'ready for attorney handoff' unless every notice in the sequence passed Compliance Review" ], "commands": [ "AssemblePacket", "LogAttorneyHandoff" ], "events": [ "LienPacketAssembled", "AttorneyHandoffLogged" ], "repository": "LienReadyPacketRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One packet per transaction" } ], "invariants": [ { "invariant": "A DelinquencyFile cannot advance past Compliance Review without a logged analyst sign-off", "context": "Compliance Review", "aggregate": "DelinquencyFile", "why": "Preserves the 100%-human-review trust guarantee", "enforcement": "Application-layer state-machine check before delivery" }, { "invariant": "No notice is drafted against a Rule Matrix version flagged 'under revision'", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "aggregate": "RuleMatrixVersion", "why": "Prevents a stale/changing statute from producing a non-compliant notice", "enforcement": "Version status check before every drafting request" }, { "invariant": "An ExceptionCase can never be auto-resolved by the drafting pipeline", "context": "Exception & Escalation", "aggregate": "ExceptionCase", "why": "Bankruptcy/SCRA/litigation cases require human legal judgment", "enforcement": "State-machine forbids automated transition out of 'escalated'" }, { "invariant": "A LienReadyPacket cannot be marked ready without every notice in its sequence carrying a delivery timestamp and Compliance Review approval", "context": "Lien Readiness", "aggregate": "LienReadyPacket", "why": "Guarantees the packet is defensible before attorney filing", "enforcement": "Completeness check against the full NoticeSequence before assembly" } ], "ai_agents": [ { "name": "Normalization Agent", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "responsibility": "Extract and confidence-score owner, unit, balance, aging, and prior-notice history from an uploaded roster", "inputs": [ "Raw roster export" ], "outputs": [ "Normalized DelinquencyFile fields with confidence scores" ], "tools": [ "Document extraction / structured-output LLM call" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Auto-confirming a low-confidence field", "Contacting the homeowner" ], "memory_scope": "Single-file, no cross-client memory", "retrieval_sources": [ "None — pure extraction from the uploaded document" ], "validations": [ "Schema validation", "Confidence threshold check" ], "confidence_scoring": "Per-field confidence score; below threshold routes to Compliance Analyst confirmation", "escalation_triggers": [ "Ambiguous owner/unit match", "Missing aging date" ], "human_approval": "Compliance Analyst confirms low-confidence fields", "failure_modes": [ "Wrong balance/date silently accepted if confidence scoring is miscalibrated" ], "audit_logs": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "metrics": [ "False-low-confidence rate", "Extraction accuracy vs. gold-standard fixtures" ], "versioning": "Extraction prompt versioned independently of the Rule Matrix" }, { "name": "Notice Drafting Agent", "context": "Notice Drafting", "responsibility": "Draft each required notice grounded in the active Rule Matrix and normalized roster data, with inline statutory citations", "inputs": [ "Normalized DelinquencyFile", "Active RuleMatrixVersion" ], "outputs": [ "Drafted notice text with citations" ], "tools": [ "LLM API with retrieval grounding" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Drafting without a cited Rule Matrix fact", "Calculating a statutory deadline (deterministic engine's job)", "Drafting for an account with an open Exception Queue flag" ], "memory_scope": "Single-file, single-notice-type", "retrieval_sources": [ "Active RuleMatrixVersion for the account's state", "Association governing documents / collection policy" ], "validations": [ "AI self-check against retrieved statute and roster data" ], "confidence_scoring": "Per-clause citation-grounding confidence; low-confidence clauses flagged for analyst attention", "escalation_triggers": [ "No matching Rule Matrix provision found for a required element" ], "human_approval": "Compliance Analyst reviews every draft before approval", "failure_modes": [ "Hallucinated statutory claim not grounded in the Rule Matrix" ], "audit_logs": "Prompt version, retrieval hit IDs, and output logged per draft", "metrics": [ "Rework rate", "Citation-grounding accuracy vs. gold-standard fixtures" ], "versioning": "Prompt library versioned independently of both the LLM vendor and the Rule Matrix" }, { "name": "Legislative-Update Monitoring Agent", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "responsibility": "Monitor legislative-update feeds for signals that an active state's statute may have changed", "inputs": [ "State legislative-update feeds", "CAI/state-bar community-association law updates" ], "outputs": [ "Statute-change signal flags" ], "tools": [ "Feed monitoring / summarization LLM call" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Auto-updating a live Rule Matrix version without attorney review" ], "memory_scope": "Per-state monitoring history", "retrieval_sources": [ "Public legislative-update feeds" ], "validations": [ "Flag confirmed or dismissed by Compliance Lead" ], "confidence_scoring": "Signal-strength score; any non-trivial signal freezes new-file production for that state", "escalation_triggers": [ "Any detected statute-change signal" ], "human_approval": "Compliance Lead + attorney re-validate before unfreezing", "failure_modes": [ "A real change is missed amid low-signal monitoring noise" ], "audit_logs": "Every flag and its resolution logged", "metrics": [ "False-negative rate on missed statute changes" ], "versioning": "N/A — monitoring only, does not itself version the Rule Matrix" } ], "prompt_chain_map": [ "Intake -> Normalization Agent (extract + confidence-score) -> Rule Matrix Retrieval -> Notice Drafting Agent (draft + cite) -> AI self-check -> Compliance Analyst (approve or escalate)" ], "rag_map": [ "Rule Matrix (versioned, per-state) -> retrieval by state + association -> Notice Drafting Agent, grounded citation generation" ], "ai_evaluation": [ "Gold-standard library of correctly-produced notices per state, used to anchor reviewer training and prompt evaluation before each state goes live" ], "hallucination_controls": [ "Retrieval-first drafting — no statutory claim without a cited Rule Matrix fact", "Deterministic date-math engine computes every deadline; the LLM never calculates a date" ], "human_in_the_loop_plan": [ "Compliance Analyst reviews and signs off on 100% of files through at least the first 20 pilot files, regardless of AI confidence score" ], "ai_audit_plan": [ "Every drafting call logged with prompt/Rule-Matrix version, retrieval source, and the reviewer's approve/escalate decision" ], "prompt_versioning": "The Notice Drafting prompt library is versioned independently of the LLM vendor and independently of the Rule Matrix, so either can change without silently changing the other.", "human_roles": [ { "role": "Compliance Analyst", "responsibilities": [ "Statute-checklist review of every drafted notice", "Exception-queue triage" ], "contexts": [ "Compliance Review", "Exception & Escalation" ], "decisions_owned": [ "Approve, correct, or escalate a notice" ], "ai_support": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "approval_authority": "Sign-off on every Cure Notice Pack before delivery", "escalation_authority": "Route to the client's attorney", "quality_metrics": [ "Rework rate", "Analyst minutes per file" ], "workload_risks": [ "Review fatigue under high pilot volume" ] }, { "role": "Client's retained attorney", "responsibilities": [ "Review and file every Lien-Ready Packet", "Resolve every dispute/bankruptcy/litigation escalation" ], "contexts": [ "Lien Readiness", "Exception & Escalation" ], "decisions_owned": [ "File or not file a lien", "Resolve an escalated exception" ], "ai_support": "Pre-assembled, citation-complete packet", "approval_authority": "Final legal sign-off on every filed document", "escalation_authority": "N/A — top of the escalation chain", "quality_metrics": [ "Packet completeness rate" ], "workload_risks": [ "Incomplete packets forcing rework" ] }, { "role": "Compliance Lead / Founder", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain and version the Rule Matrix", "Approve new-state activation" ], "contexts": [ "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Learning Loop" ], "decisions_owned": [ "Freeze/unfreeze a state's Rule Matrix" ], "ai_support": "Legislative-update monitoring agent flags likely changes", "approval_authority": "Version-control sign-off on every Rule Matrix change", "escalation_authority": "N/A", "quality_metrics": [ "Rule Matrix currency" ], "workload_risks": [ "Missing a real statute change amid low-signal monitoring noise" ] } ], "human_review_checkpoints": [ "AI draft -> Compliance Analyst statute-checklist approval, before every delivery" ], "escalation_matrix": [ "AI self-check -> Compliance Analyst -> Client's retained attorney -> (if needed) independent counsel review of the operating model" ], "manual_override_rules": [ "Any manual override of an automated completeness pass is captured as an explicit override event with actor and reason" ], "separation_of_duties": [ "The Notice Drafting Agent cannot approve its own output", "A Compliance Analyst cannot draft a notice on the client's behalf without a logged override event", "The client's attorney, not CureClock, always signs and files" ], "quality_control_workflow": [ "Every file passes deterministic rule-engine validation, an AI self-check, and human Compliance Analyst review before delivery; no file skips a gate" ], "data_objects": [ { "name": "DelinquencyFile", "meaning": "One delinquent account's full record across its notice cycle", "owner_context": "Intake & Normalization", "writers": [ "Intake & Normalization" ], "readers": [ "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Notice Drafting", "Compliance Review" ], "source_of_truth": "Intake & Normalization", "retention": "Life of the file plus the audit-trail defensibility period", "privacy": "Restricted — homeowner PII", "audit": "Every state transition logged" }, { "name": "RuleMatrixVersion", "meaning": "A dated, attorney-reviewed statutory rule set for one state", "owner_context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "writers": [ "Rule Matrix & Retrieval" ], "readers": [ "Notice Drafting" ], "source_of_truth": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "retention": "Retained indefinitely (version history)", "privacy": "Not personal data", "audit": "Every version change logged with attorney reviewer" }, { "name": "NoticeSequence", "meaning": "The ordered set of required notices for one DelinquencyFile", "owner_context": "Notice Drafting / Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "writers": [ "Notice Drafting", "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring" ], "readers": [ "Compliance Review", "Lien Readiness" ], "source_of_truth": "Notice Drafting", "retention": "Life of the file plus the audit-trail defensibility period", "privacy": "Restricted — contains homeowner PII", "audit": "Every draft/review/delivery timestamped" }, { "name": "ExceptionCase", "meaning": "An account routed out of the automated pipeline", "owner_context": "Exception & Escalation", "writers": [ "Exception & Escalation" ], "readers": [ "Client's retained attorney" ], "source_of_truth": "Exception & Escalation", "retention": "Life of the file plus the audit-trail defensibility period", "privacy": "Restricted — homeowner PII plus sensitive legal status", "audit": "Escalation decision + reason logged" }, { "name": "LienReadyPacket", "meaning": "The complete evidentiary file for attorney handoff", "owner_context": "Lien Readiness", "writers": [ "Lien Readiness" ], "readers": [ "Client's retained attorney" ], "source_of_truth": "Lien Readiness", "retention": "Life of the file plus the applicable statute-of-limitations period", "privacy": "Restricted — homeowner PII and financial data", "audit": "Attorney handoff timestamp logged" } ], "read_models": [ "ComplianceAnalystQueue read model: files awaiting review, files in the Exception Queue, files awaiting delivery" ], "reporting_models": [ "Client outcome report per CAM company: files delivered, cycle time, rework count, escalation count, deadline compliance rate" ], "data_duplication_notes": [ "A CAM company's association roster (owner/unit identifiers) is referenced by both Intake & Normalization and Delivery & Deadline Monitoring — Intake & Normalization remains the source of truth" ], "data_retention": [ "DelinquencyFile, NoticeSequence, ExceptionCase, and LienReadyPacket records: life of the file plus the audit-trail defensibility period disclosed to each client at intake" ], "data_quality_risks": [ "Format drift when a CAM company changes its property-management software export format" ], "use_cases": [ { "name": "Deliver a Cure Notice Pack", "actor": "CAM company collections coordinator", "context": "Notice Drafting / Compliance Review / Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "goal": "Get a statute-perfect cure notice and Deadline Ledger within 24 hours", "preconditions": [ "Roster uploaded", "Account normalized with no open Exception Queue flag" ], "main_flow": [ "Upload roster", "Account flagged and normalized", "Rule Matrix retrieved", "Notice drafted", "Compliance Analyst reviews and approves", "Notice delivered with Deadline Ledger" ], "alternative_flows": [ "Low-confidence field routes to analyst confirmation before drafting", "Dispute/bankruptcy/SCRA signal routes to the Exception Queue instead of drafting" ], "business_rules": [ "100% human review through the first 20 pilot files" ], "ai_role": "Extracts, normalizes, and drafts with citations", "human_role": "Confirms low-confidence fields; reviews and approves every notice", "commands": [ "SubmitRoster", "DraftNotice", "ApproveNotice" ], "events": [ "AccountFlagged", "NoticeDrafted", "NoticeApproved", "NoticeDelivered" ], "aggregates": [ "DelinquencyFile", "NoticeSequence" ], "success": "Notice delivered within 24-48 hours with zero missed statutory elements", "failure_handling": "Escalate to Compliance Lead if a Rule Matrix gap is found", "audit": "Every step timestamped in the audit log" }, { "name": "Assemble and hand off a Lien-Ready Packet", "actor": "Client's retained attorney", "context": "Lien Readiness", "goal": "Receive a complete, defensible packet ready to file", "preconditions": [ "Full Notice Sequence delivered and approved, account still unresolved" ], "main_flow": [ "Notice Sequence completes unresolved", "Packet assembled (ledger, all notices, proof of timing, legal description)", "Attorney handoff logged", "Attorney reviews and files" ], "alternative_flows": [ "Packet found incomplete -> returned to Lien Readiness for correction before re-handoff" ], "business_rules": [ "Never assembled from a partially-delivered sequence; always attorney-reviewed before filing" ], "ai_role": "Pre-assembles the packet from the completed sequence", "human_role": "Attorney reviews and files; CureClock never files", "commands": [ "AssemblePacket", "LogAttorneyHandoff" ], "events": [ "LienPacketAssembled", "AttorneyHandoffLogged" ], "aggregates": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "success": "Attorney files a lien that survives a homeowner challenge", "failure_handling": "Incomplete packet routes back for correction, not filed", "audit": "Handoff and attorney response timestamped" } ], "architecture": { "style": "Founder-operated, deterministic-rules-plus-LLM pipeline with a single human review chokepoint", "why": "Matches the blueprint's Fulfillment Process: no custom software at launch, automation deepens only after pilot volume proves the workflow", "rejected_alternatives": [ "Full custom multi-tenant SaaS platform at launch (over-built for a 5-client pilot)" ], "backend_modules": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Notice Drafting", "Compliance Review", "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "Exception & Escalation", "Lien Readiness", "Learning Loop" ], "frontend_modules": [ "Landing page (site/index.html)", "Diagnostic intake form (Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan)" ], "api_boundaries": [ "No public API at launch; internal service boundaries only between the eight bounded contexts" ], "database_strategy": "Lightweight structured store (Airtable-class tracker) for DelinquencyFile, NoticeSequence, RuleMatrixVersion, ExceptionCase, LienReadyPacket records", "event_bus": "Not a formal message bus at launch-stage volume; events are recorded sequentially in the per-file audit log", "queue": "Simple per-file work queue ordered by intake time and statutory urgency", "workflow_engine": "Manual/analyst-driven workflow at launch; the Deadline Ledger is the de facto workflow state tracker", "ai_orchestration": "Sequential agent chain (Normalization Agent -> Notice Drafting Agent -> AI self-check -> Compliance Analyst), model-agnostic per the Model Portability layer", "rag_layer": "Retrieval grounded against the versioned Rule Matrix and association governing documents", "file_storage": "Encrypted object storage for uploaded rosters, governing documents, and delivered PDF packs", "authn_authz": "Single verified account per CAM company client; role-based access for Compliance Analyst vs. Compliance Lead vs. Client", "admin_dashboard": "Founder/Compliance Lead view of the Rule Matrix version history and pilot-cohort metrics", "client_portal": "Not built at launch; delivery is via secure email/simple portal", "operator_dashboard": "Compliance Analyst queue view (files awaiting review, files in the Exception Queue)", "observability": "Per-file audit log; cycle-time and escalation-rate tracking", "audit_logging": "Append-only log of every generation, review, correction, and delivery event per file", "deployment": "Landing page deployed as a static site; fulfillment is founder/analyst-operated outside any deployed application" }, "module_structure": { "tree": "builds/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk/\n business-plan.md\n brand.md\n offer-and-pricing.md\n delivery-playbook.md\n ai-engine-spec.md\n gtm-kit.md\n financial-model.csv\n launch-plan.md\n compliance-checklist.md\n build-summary.pdf\n site/\n index.html\n blueprint/index.html\n blueprint.dna.json", "modules": [ { "name": "Intake & Normalization", "purpose": "Roster upload and canonical extraction", "owned_domain": [ "DelinquencyFile.raw", "DelinquencyFile.normalized" ], "application_services": [ "RosterIntakeService", "FieldNormalizationService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Encrypted object storage" ], "public_interfaces": [ "Secure upload form" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Direct homeowner contact" ] }, { "name": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "purpose": "Versioned statutory rule set", "owned_domain": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "application_services": [ "RuleMatrixService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Versioned spreadsheet/lightweight DB" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Drafting against a frozen version" ] }, { "name": "Notice Drafting", "purpose": "Citation-grounded notice generation", "owned_domain": [ "NoticeSequence.drafts" ], "application_services": [ "NoticeDraftingService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "LLM API" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Delivery without review" ] }, { "name": "Compliance Review", "purpose": "Human sign-off gate", "owned_domain": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "application_services": [ "ComplianceReviewService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Airtable-class tracker" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Auto-approval" ] } ], "dependency_rules": [ "Notice Drafting depends on Rule Matrix & Retrieval, never the reverse", "Delivery depends on Compliance Review's approval, never bypasses it", "Lien Readiness depends on a fully-delivered Notice Sequence, never partial" ] }, "security_governance": { "controls": [ { "risk": "Homeowner PII exposure", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "impact": "High", "control": "Encrypted intake/storage, access-controlled review tooling", "audit": "Access logged per analyst per file" }, { "risk": "Stale Rule Matrix drafting", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "impact": "High", "control": "Freeze-on-signal policy; attorney re-validation required to unfreeze", "audit": "Freeze/unfreeze events logged with attorney sign-off" }, { "risk": "Unauthorized practice of law", "context": "Lien Readiness", "impact": "High", "control": "CureClock never files or signs; attorney-only filing gate", "audit": "Attorney handoff timestamp logged on every packet" } ], "ai_governance": [ "Every AI drafting call is retrieval-grounded and logged with prompt/Rule-Matrix version", "No AI agent can approve its own output" ], "prompt_injection_defense": [ "Roster and governing-document content is treated as data, not instructions, during extraction and drafting" ], "sensitive_data_handling": [ "Homeowner financial/PII data is encrypted at rest and in transit; access limited to analysts actively working the file" ], "access_control_matrix": [ { "role": "Compliance Analyst", "context": "Compliance Review, Exception & Escalation", "capabilities": [ "Review, approve, correct, escalate" ] }, { "role": "Compliance Lead", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval, Learning Loop", "capabilities": [ "Activate/freeze Rule Matrix versions, approve versioned updates" ] }, { "role": "Client's retained attorney", "context": "Lien Readiness, Exception & Escalation", "capabilities": [ "Review and file Lien-Ready Packets, resolve escalations" ] }, { "role": "CAM company client", "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "capabilities": [ "View/download own delivered files only" ] } ], "audit_log_requirements": [ "Every document generation, review, correction, and delivery event is timestamped and retained per compliance-checklist.md" ] }, "observability": { "metrics": [ { "metric": "Missed statutory deadlines", "type": "Guardrail", "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "why": "Hard-floor KPI", "target": "Zero", "alert_threshold": "Any occurrence" }, { "metric": "Rework rate", "type": "Quality", "context": "Compliance Review", "why": "Signals whether the model is scalable", "target": "≤3% post-90-day (≤10% hard gate during pilot)", "alert_threshold": ">10%" }, { "metric": "Analyst minutes per file", "type": "Efficiency", "context": "Compliance Review", "why": "Tracks automation progress toward gross-margin target", "target": "12 min launch -> 5 min day 90", "alert_threshold": "No improvement by day 60" }, { "metric": "Escalation rate", "type": "Volume", "context": "Exception & Escalation", "why": "Tracks how much of the pipeline needs human legal judgment", "target": "<10%", "alert_threshold": ">15%" }, { "metric": "Cycle time", "type": "Latency", "context": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "why": "Client-facing SLA", "target": "24-48 hours intake to delivery", "alert_threshold": ">72 hours" } ], "dashboards": [ "Compliance Analyst queue view", "Cycle-time and escalation-rate trend view", "Rule Matrix version-currency view" ], "audit_reports": [ "Per-file audit log export (generation, review, correction, delivery events)" ], "quality_review_reports": [ "Weekly rework-rate and rejected-draft review" ], "ai_evaluation_reports": [ "Gold-standard fixture comparison report per state per notice type" ], "client_outcome_reports": [ "Per-client outcome report: files delivered, cycle time, rework count, deadline compliance rate" ] }, "testing_strategy": { "tests": [ { "type": "Deterministic date-math unit test", "validates": "Every statutory deadline calculation", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "example": "Texas 45-day cure period computed correctly from a given delinquency-flag date" }, { "type": "Red-team statutory edge-case test", "validates": "Handling of out-of-state owner, deceased owner, active bankruptcy, disputed charge", "context": "Exception & Escalation", "example": "A synthetic roster row with an active bankruptcy flag correctly routes to the Exception Queue instead of drafting" }, { "type": "Gold-standard fixture comparison", "validates": "Drafted notice quality against a reviewed, correct example", "context": "Notice Drafting", "example": "A drafted Texas cure notice compared clause-by-clause against the gold-standard Texas example" } ], "critical_domain_rules": [ "Deadline math is never left to the LLM", "No file bypasses 100% human review through the first 20 pilot files", "No Lien-Ready Packet is ever spot-checked" ], "ai_eval_dataset": [ "Synthetic Texas delinquency rosters with known statutory edge cases" ], "regression_plan": "Every Rule Matrix or prompt-template version change is re-tested against the full red-team edge-case suite and the gold-standard fixture library before activation.", "contract_testing_plan": "Not applicable at launch — no external API contract exists; internal service boundaries are tested via the end-to-end pilot-file walkthrough.", "manual_qa_checklist": [ "Every notice reviewed against the state Statute Checklist", "Every Lien-Ready Packet reviewed for completeness before attorney handoff" ] }, "mvp_roadmap": [ { "phase": "Cycle one", "goal": "Deliver the Cure Notice Pack to 5 Texas pilot CAM companies with zero missed deadlines", "features": [ "Cure Notice Pack drafting", "Deadline Ledger", "Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan" ], "contexts": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Notice Drafting", "Compliance Review", "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring" ], "ai_needs": [ "Normalization Agent", "Notice Drafting Agent" ], "human_workflows": [ "Founder-as-Compliance-Analyst 100% review" ], "data_needs": [ "Texas Rule Matrix v1 (attorney-reviewed)" ], "integrations": [ "LLM API", "HTML-to-PDF templating" ], "risks": [ "Any missed statutory deadline" ], "exit_criteria": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "phase": "Month 2-3", "goal": "Reach 20 pilot clients, harden exception handling, launch the retainer tier", "features": [ "Full Notice-to-Lien-Ready Sequence", "Portfolio Deadline-Monitoring Retainer", "Exception Queue hardening" ], "contexts": [ "Exception & Escalation", "Lien Readiness" ], "ai_needs": [ "Exception-detection agent" ], "human_workflows": [ "Attorney review of every Lien-Ready Packet" ], "data_needs": [ "Hardened exception-trigger checklist" ], "integrations": [], "risks": [ "Rework rate above 10%" ], "exit_criteria": "20-pilot checkpoint metrics reviewed before further scaling" } ], "scaling_roadmap": [ { "stage": "Second-state expansion", "trigger": "20-pilot Texas checkpoint clears with zero missed deadlines and rework ≤10%", "architecture_change": "Add a second RuleMatrixVersion track (Florida or Colorado)", "operational_change": "Attorney review and red-team testing for the new state before any client is onboarded there", "risk": "Rule-matrix currency lags across two states" }, { "stage": "Spot-check review", "trigger": "100+ reviewed files per state prove the pattern", "architecture_change": "AI self-check confidence gating for low-risk file types", "operational_change": "Compliance Analyst review shifts from 100% to sampled for proven file types (never for Lien-Ready Packets)", "risk": "A rare edge case slips through a spot-check sample" }, { "stage": "Client portal", "trigger": "Client count and file volume exceed email/manual-tracking capacity", "architecture_change": "Build a client-facing portal for delivery and Deadline Ledger visibility", "operational_change": "Reduced manual delivery overhead", "risk": "Portal build cost outpaces near-term revenue if pursued too early" } ], "risk_register": [ { "risk": "A generated notice omits a required statutory element", "likelihood": "Low", "impact": "High", "signal": "Rework rate rising above target", "mitigation": "Deterministic rule-engine checklist plus 100% human review", "owner": "Compliance Analyst", "context": "Compliance Review" }, { "risk": "A state statute is amended and the Rule Matrix is not updated in time", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "High", "signal": "Legislative-update monitoring flags a change", "mitigation": "Freeze new-file production for that state until re-validated", "owner": "Compliance Lead", "context": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval" }, { "risk": "FDCPA applicability is found to extend further than assumed", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "Medium", "signal": "New circuit-court ruling or CAI advocacy update", "mitigation": "Draft-only MVP design; conservative full-compliance default", "owner": "Compliance Lead / counsel", "context": "Exception & Escalation" }, { "risk": "Roster data extraction error propagates into a notice", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "Medium", "signal": "Rising false-low-confidence or client-flagged error rate", "mitigation": "Confidence-scored extraction with human confirmation", "owner": "Compliance Analyst", "context": "Intake & Normalization" }, { "risk": "A CAM company data breach exposes homeowner PII", "likelihood": "Low", "impact": "High", "signal": "Unusual access pattern in the audit log", "mitigation": "Encrypted storage, minimal retention, documented incident-response plan", "owner": "Compliance Lead", "context": "Intake & Normalization" } ], "adrs": [ { "id": "ADR-1", "decision": "Draft-only MVP — CureClock never contacts the homeowner directly", "status": "Accepted", "context": "FDCPA applicability to third-party assessment collectors is legally contested but real", "options": [ "Draft-only (client sends/signs)", "Full-service collector-of-record model" ], "chosen": "Draft-only", "business_reason": "Avoids the debt-collector-of-record trust burden and reduces regulatory classification risk during the MVP phase", "technical_reason": "Simplifies the system boundary — CureClock never needs a homeowner-facing communication channel", "tradeoffs": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "risks": [ "Market may eventually demand a managed-send tier" ], "revisit_trigger": "20+ pilot clients ask for fully-managed send with counsel-reviewed safeguards", "why": "Matches the blueprint's explicit MVP design choice", "consequences": "CureClock's addressable workflow excludes direct collection at launch", "reversal": "Would require a new bounded context (Homeowner Communication) and separate counsel review", "revisit_when": "Post-20-pilot-checkpoint, if client demand is strong and counsel signs off" }, { "id": "ADR-2", "decision": "Deterministic date-math engine for all statutory deadlines, never LLM-computed", "status": "Accepted", "context": "A missed or miscalculated deadline is the single highest-impact failure mode", "options": [ "LLM-computed dates", "Deterministic rule-engine dates" ], "chosen": "Deterministic rule-engine dates", "business_reason": "Zero-missed-deadline is the hard-floor KPI and the entire trust proposition", "technical_reason": "Date math is a solved, verifiable problem; LLMs introduce unnecessary variance", "tradeoffs": "Requires explicit engineering of each state's date-math rules before that state can go live", "risks": [ "A coding error in the deterministic engine itself" ], "revisit_trigger": "Never — this is a permanent architectural constraint, not a temporary one", "why": "Matches the blueprint's Internal AI Engine Architecture layer 5", "consequences": "Every new state requires explicit date-math implementation, not just a prompt update", "reversal": "Not planned", "revisit_when": "N/A" }, { "id": "ADR-3", "decision": "No custom software platform at launch; Airtable-class tracker + LLM API + HTML-to-PDF templating", "status": "Accepted", "context": "5-client, 10-file-each pilot cohort does not justify custom software investment", "options": [ "Custom platform", "Off-the-shelf tool stack" ], "chosen": "Off-the-shelf tool stack", "business_reason": "Matches the blueprint's Fulfillment Process — no custom software required for the first 3 customers", "technical_reason": "Minimizes build time before the first paid Cure Notice Pack", "tradeoffs": "Manual/analyst-driven workflow caps throughput until automation is justified", "risks": [ "Manual tooling becomes a bottleneck before automation is built" ], "revisit_trigger": "Client count or file volume exceeds manual-tracking capacity", "why": "Build-before-scale discipline per launch-plan.md", "consequences": "Architecture investment tracks proven pilot volume, not anticipated scale", "reversal": "Build a client portal and automated roster parsing once volume justifies it", "revisit_when": "Post-20-pilot checkpoint" } ], "self_audit": { "scores": [ { "category": "Regulatory moat clarity", "score": 5, "weakness": "State-by-state expansion still requires per-state attorney review, which is slow", "improvement": "Build a standing attorney-review pipeline for new states in parallel with pilot growth" }, { "category": "MVP narrowness", "score": 5, "weakness": "None significant — single state, single feature", "improvement": "N/A" }, { "category": "Evidence strength", "score": 4, "weakness": "National delinquency-rate percentage remains unverified (single authoritative dataset not found)", "improvement": "Locate a primary CAI/FCAR dataset with a point-estimate national delinquency rate" }, { "category": "Pricing evidence", "score": 3, "weakness": "Named competitors' exact rate cards were not published in this run's search sweep", "improvement": "Confirm actual competitor pricing through direct pilot-client conversations" } ], "weakest_parts": [ "Exact national delinquency-rate figure", "Named competitors' precise pricing" ], "biggest_assumptions": [ "A CAM company that pilots one association expands to its full portfolio within 90 days if the pilot performs (not yet measured)" ], "highest_risk_decisions": [ "Draft-only MVP boundary (ADR-1) — must be held strictly to avoid FDCPA misclassification" ], "needs_domain_expert": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "needs_legal": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "needs_prototype": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "validate_before_prod": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "final_recommendations": [ "Launch CureClock as a single-state (Texas), single-feature (Cure Notice Pack) MVP, sold to 5 pilot CAM companies via a free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan.", "Hold 100% human review and draft-only (client sends/signs) positioning through the first 20 pilot files before evaluating expansion.", "Do not activate a second state until its Rule Matrix is independently attorney-reviewed and red-team tested — never inferred from Texas." ], "extensions": { "service_business_reality_check": { "is_service_business": true, "paid_outcome_clear": true, "workflow_present": true, "ai_native_fit_score": 4.6, "red_flags": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "ai_native_fit": { "score": 4.6, "why": "High-volume, statutorily rigid document production with judgment concentrated in a small Compliance Review/Exception-Queue chokepoint — exactly the shape of work current frontier models do well, with margins expanding as extraction/drafting accuracy improves.", "disqualifiers": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "domain_evidence_register": [ { "claim": "373,000 community associations exist in the US as of 2025, collecting ~$103.3B in assessments annually", "evidence_type": "industry statistics roundup citing FCAR data", "source": "Onyx Capital Management — HOA Facts and Figures 2025", "strength": "high", "gaps": "Single-source roundup; cross-checked against current 2026 statistics pages (DoorLoop, iPropertyManagement) for order of magnitude" }, { "claim": "Texas requires a 45-day cure notice and a two-step (30-day-apart) lien notice with a 90-day wait before filing", "evidence_type": "state law library guide / primary statute", "source": "Texas State Law Library / Texas Property Code Chapter 209", "strength": "high", "gaps": "None — primary statutory text" }, { "claim": "FDCPA applies to third-party HOA-assessment collectors once outside help is engaged; a 7th Circuit ruling held assessments are debts in IL/IN/WI", "evidence_type": "trade-association advocacy page plus independent law-firm confirmation", "source": "Community Associations Institute; Southwest Recovery Services; KSN Law Firm", "strength": "high", "gaps": "National applicability outside the 7th Circuit remains legally contested" }, { "claim": "Named competitors (Alterra, Southwest Recovery, Tinnelly, KSN, Community Collection Service) actively sell this service today", "evidence_type": "public competitor service pages", "source": "Direct review of each firm's website", "strength": "high", "gaps": "Exact rate cards not published by any named competitor" } ], "assumption_register": [ { "assumption": "A CAM company managing 15+ associations has enough delinquency volume for per-file pricing to matter", "impact_if_wrong": "moderate — MVP wedge would need a lower floor or bundled pricing", "how_to_validate": "5-company pilot cohort qualification screening", "blocking": false }, { "assumption": "A CAM company that pilots one association expands to its full portfolio within 90 days if the pilot performs", "impact_if_wrong": "severe — retention/expansion economics in the financial model would need revision", "how_to_validate": "Track expansion rate across the first 5 pilot clients by day 90", "blocking": true } ], "language_conflict_map": [ { "term": "Notice", "meaning_a": "A CureClock-drafted, statute-cited Cure Notice Pack element (this business's term)", "context_a": "CureClock", "meaning_b": "A generic property-management notice used by unrelated businesses elsewhere in the AINBIS portfolio", "context_b": "other portfolio businesses (not this one)", "resolution": "Always qualify as part of the Notice Sequence (capitalized, CureClock's defined term) in CureClock copy" } ], "build_buy_integrate": [ { "subdomain": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "decision": "build", "reason": "Core differentiated IP — the maintained, attorney-reviewed statutory rule matrix is the moat" }, { "subdomain": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "decision": "buy (Airtable-class tool)", "reason": "Off-the-shelf tracker is sufficient at launch volume; not differentiating on its own" }, { "subdomain": "Notice Drafting", "decision": "buy + build", "reason": "LLM API bought; the retrieval-grounded prompt library is built and owned" } ], "core_protection_strategy": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "boundary_stress_tests": [ { "scenario": "A homeowner disputes a Cure Notice Pack as inaccurate", "contexts_touched": [ "Compliance Review", "Exception & Escalation" ], "breaks_if": "The dispute-detection checklist has a gap for a novel phrasing", "verdict": "Mitigated by Compliance Analyst review as the second gate before any client-facing dispute response" }, { "scenario": "A CAM company asks CureClock to contact a homeowner directly", "contexts_touched": [ "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring" ], "breaks_if": "The draft-only boundary is not held", "verdict": "Held firmly — CureClock declines and reiterates the draft-only model per compliance-checklist.md" } ], "unresolved_ownership": [ { "concept": "Governing-document/collection-policy accuracy", "candidates": [ "CAM company client", "Compliance Analyst" ], "recommendation": "CAM company client owns and supplies the governing documents; CureClock only drafts from what is provided and flags gaps at intake" } ], "published_language_contracts": [ { "producer": "Intake & Normalization", "consumer": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "contract": "Canonical normalized DelinquencyFile schema", "versioning": "Schema version pinned per extraction-prompt release" }, { "producer": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "consumer": "Notice Drafting", "contract": "Active RuleMatrixVersion for a given state", "versioning": "Rule Matrix version dated and attorney-reviewed" } ], "shared_kernel_warnings": [ "None identified — bounded contexts communicate only via events, no shared kernel" ], "aggregate_stress_tests": [ { "aggregate": "NoticeSequence", "scenario": "Concurrent Compliance Analyst review attempts on the same notice", "invariant_at_risk": "No notice is delivered without a single clean analyst sign-off", "verdict": "Mitigated by locking the file to one active reviewer at a time" } ], "agent_stress_tests": [ { "agent": "Notice Drafting Agent", "scenario": "A statute citation in the Rule Matrix is ambiguous for an edge-case account", "failure_mode": "Draft cites the wrong statutory subsection", "guardrail": "AI self-check plus Compliance Analyst statute-checklist review catches subsection-level errors", "verdict": "Acceptable with the analyst gate; escalates to Compliance Lead if the Rule Matrix itself is ambiguous" } ], "regulated_domain_handling": [ { "regime": "FDCPA (federal)", "applies_because": "CureClock's clients engage outside help to collect community-association assessments", "controls": [ "Draft-only — never contacts the homeowner", "Defaults to full-compliance assumptions everywhere" ], "evidence_required": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "regime": "Unauthorized practice of law", "applies_because": "Drafting a lien document that gets filed is a legal act in most states", "controls": [ "Never files or records a lien", "Never signs on behalf of the association" ], "evidence_required": "Client's retained attorney sign-off on every filed document" }, { "regime": "State community-association manager licensing (FL, CA/CACM, NV, IL)", "applies_because": "CureClock operates as a vendor to the licensed CAM company/manager", "controls": [ "Never represents itself as a licensed manager or attorney" ], "evidence_required": "Client's own CAM/manager license on file" } ], "unit_economics": { "price_model": "Flat per-file (Cure Notice Pack, Full Sequence) plus a monthly Portfolio Deadline-Monitoring Retainer and a one-time Multi-State Expansion Add-On", "unit_of_value": "delinquent account, per required notice event (Cure Notice Pack) or per completed Notice Sequence (Full Sequence)", "gross_margin_pct": 30, "cost_drivers": [ "LLM inference/compute", "Compliance Analyst review minutes", "Rule Matrix maintenance amortization", "QA sampling and delivery overhead" ], "breakeven_note": "Gross margin expands from a launch estimate in the 25-35% range toward the 50%+ target by month 12-18 as analyst review time falls from 12 to 5 minutes per file and the Rule Matrix amortizes across a growing client base" }, "margin_leakage_map": [ { "leakage": "Analyst review minutes not falling as automation matures", "cause": "New exception types not yet in the gold-standard library", "impact": "Gross margin compression per new client", "mitigation": "Gold-standard library grows with every pilot file; reused across clients in the same state" } ], "slop_findings": [ { "pattern": "Generic SaaS marketing phrasing", "status": "checked", "note": "Banned-phrase list enforced on the landing page (no 'leverage AI', 'streamline your workflow', 'cutting-edge', 'revolutionize', 'unlock', 'supercharge')" }, { "pattern": "Fabricated testimonials/case results", "status": "checked", "note": "None present; proof slots are honest dashed [PLACEHOLDER] markers keyed to real future pilot events" } ], "drift_checks": [ { "stage": "build", "status": "checked", "findings": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] } ], "gates": [ { "id": "G1", "title": "No public claim before owner-action facts close", "passed": false, "checks": [ { "name": "Entity confirmed", "ok": false, "evidence": "Pending owner action — operating entity name/EIN not yet declared for CureClock" }, { "name": "Compliance Analyst identity confirmed", "ok": false, "evidence": "Pending owner action — the founder acts as the first Compliance Analyst per launch-plan.md" }, { "name": "Trademark clearance", "ok": false, "evidence": "Pending owner action — 'CureClock' web collision-checked (no collision found) but not yet formally cleared per brand.md" } ] } ], "contradiction_scan": [ { "id": "C1", "severity": "low", "message": "No contradiction found between the source blueprint's draft-only MVP design and this build's landing page/compliance-checklist copy — both consistently state CureClock never contacts the homeowner.", "refs": [ "business-plan.md", "compliance-checklist.md", "site/index.html" ] } ], "rubric": { "categories": [ { "category": "domain_modeling", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "ai_governance", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "compliance_boundary", "score": 5, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "unit_economics", "score": 3, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "gtm_clarity", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true } ], "pass": true, "average": 4.0 }, "foundry_package": { "version": "1.8.0", "checksum": "sha256:generated-locally", "counts": { "subdomains": 8, "bounded_contexts": 8, "aggregates": 5, "events": 16, "commands": 8, "policies": 4, "ai_agents": 3, "invariants": 4, "integrations": 3, "adrs": 3 }, "subset": { "subdomains": [ "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Compliance Review", "Lien Readiness", "Exception & Escalation" ], "bounded_contexts": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "Notice Drafting", "Compliance Review" ], "aggregates": [ "DelinquencyFile", "NoticeSequence", "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "events": [ "AccountFlagged", "NoticeDrafted", "NoticeApproved", "LienPacketAssembled" ], "commands": [ "SubmitRoster", "DraftNotice", "ApproveNotice" ], "policies": [ "Freeze on statute-change signal", "100% human review at launch" ], "ai_agents": [ "Normalization Agent", "Notice Drafting Agent" ], "invariants": [ "A DelinquencyFile cannot advance past Compliance Review without a logged analyst sign-off" ], "integrations": [ "CAM company property-management software", "LLM API provider" ], "adrs": [ "ADR-1", "ADR-2" ] } } } }, "ddd_coverage": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "total": 10, "passed": 10, "pct": 100, "checks": [ { "key": "subdomains", "label": "Subdomains identified", "count": 8, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "bounded_contexts", "label": "Bounded contexts modeled", "count": 8, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "aggregates", "label": "Aggregates defined", "count": 5, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "events", "label": "Domain events named", "count": 16, "min": 5, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "ai_agents", "label": "AI agents specified", "count": 3, "min": 1, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "risk_register", "label": "Risk register populated", "count": 5, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "adrs", "label": "Architecture decision records", "count": 3, "min": 1, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "use_cases", "label": "Use cases documented", "count": 2, "min": 1, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "self_audit", "label": "Self-audit completed", "count": 1, "min": 1, "ok": true, "gate": false, "unblock": "" }, { "key": "entity_gate", "label": "Owner-action entity/trademark gate", "count": 0, "min": 1, "ok": false, "gate": true, "unblock": "Owner must confirm operating entity name and complete formal trademark clearance for 'CureClock' before scaling past the pilot cohort" } ], "failingGates": [ "entity_gate" ] }, "architecture": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "archetypes": [ "Founder-operated document-production desk", "Deterministic-rules-plus-LLM compliance pipeline", "Human-in-the-loop review chokepoint" ], "archetype_impact": "The MVP is deliberately NOT a customer-facing software platform — it is a founder/analyst-operated production pipeline behind a simple intake form and PDF delivery, so architecture investment stays minimal until pilot volume proves the workflow.", "personality": [ "Precise", "Document-of-record", "Unhurried but deadline-driven", "Never hype-driven" ], "forces_ranked": [ { "force": "Zero missed statutory deadlines", "why": "Hard-floor KPI; the deterministic date-math layer exists specifically so this is never left to LLM judgment." }, { "force": "Human review at 100% through the first 20 pilot files", "why": "Trust is the entire value proposition of a compliance-production vendor; automation only expands after the pattern is proven." }, { "force": "Low build cost at launch", "why": "Founder-operated, low-code tool stack (Airtable-class tracker, LLM API, PDF templating) avoids custom software until pilot volume justifies it." }, { "force": "Auditability", "why": "Every generation, review, correction, and delivery event must be timestamped and retained to support both client legal defensibility and CureClock's own liability position." } ], "tradeoffs": [ "Founder-operated tooling caps throughput (~25-30 files/analyst/day) in exchange for near-zero infrastructure cost and fast iteration on the Rule Matrix.", "100% human review caps automation-driven margin expansion early, in exchange for the zero-missed-deadline guarantee that is the entire trust proposition." ], "quality_scenarios": [ { "attribute": "Correctness", "assumption": "Every required statutory element is present and every date is correctly calculated", "target": "Zero missed statutory deadlines; rework rate ≤3% post-90-day" }, { "attribute": "Auditability", "assumption": "A homeowner or court challenges a notice's validity", "target": "Full audit trail (generation, review, correction, delivery timestamps) retrievable for any delivered file" }, { "attribute": "Latency", "assumption": "A CAM company uploads a roster expecting fast turnaround", "target": "24-48 hour cycle time from intake to delivery" } ], "options": [ { "style": "Founder-operated manual/semi-manual pipeline (chosen)", "complexity": "Low", "cost": "Low", "ops_burden": "Medium (founder-as-analyst)", "team_fit": "High — matches a single-founder MVP", "scaling_path": "Automate roster parsing and portal delivery as volume proves the workflow", "security_impact": "Low surface area at launch", "fits_here": true, "fits_when": "Pilot cohort ≤20 files/client across ≤20 clients", "wrong_here": false, "recommended": true }, { "style": "Full custom client-portal SaaS platform", "complexity": "High", "cost": "High", "ops_burden": "High", "team_fit": "Low — over-built for a founder-led pilot", "scaling_path": "N/A at this stage", "security_impact": "Larger attack surface (auth, multi-tenant DB, public API) than launch volume justifies", "fits_here": false, "fits_when": "Post-pilot, once 50+ clients justify the build", "wrong_here": true, "recommended": false } ], "chosen_style": "Founder-operated manual/semi-manual pipeline built on off-the-shelf tools (Airtable-class tracker, LLM API, HTML-to-PDF templating), deepening automation only after the 20-pilot checkpoint clears.", "chosen_rationale": "The blueprint's own Fulfillment Process explicitly calls for no custom software at launch; architecture investment should track proven pilot volume, not anticipated scale.", "rejected": [ { "style": "Full custom client-portal SaaS platform", "why_rejected": "Over-built for a 5-client, 10-file-each pilot cohort; would delay the first paid Cure Notice Pack by months." } ], "target": { "overview": "A founder-operated compliance-production pipeline: the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage.", "frontend": "A single self-contained landing page (site/index.html) with a diagnostic intake form; no client-facing application at launch.", "backend": "Manual/semi-manual founder-operated workflow across the intake form, LLM workbench, and Airtable-class tracker; no custom backend service at launch.", "data": "Delinquency roster, governing documents, and collection policy per client; Rule Matrix versions per state; delivered-file audit log.", "api": "None public at launch; the intake form and email/portal delivery are the only external surfaces.", "authn_authz": "Single verified account per CAM company client; role-based access for Compliance Analyst vs. Compliance Lead vs. Client.", "integrations": "LLM API (drafting), HTML-to-PDF templating, Airtable-class tracker, encrypted storage/email delivery.", "background_jobs": "Deadline Ledger date checks (approaching-deadline triggers) run on a schedule, not in response to a user request.", "object_storage": "Encrypted storage for uploaded rosters, governing documents, and delivered PDF packs.", "notifications": "Email delivery of Cure Notice Packs and Deadline Ledger updates.", "search": "Not applicable at launch — Rule Matrix retrieval is by state + association, not full-text search.", "analytics": "`domain.*`/`ui.*` data events on the landing page; simple funnel tracking (scan → paid file → retainer).", "ai": "LLM API drafting workbench, retrieval-grounded against the versioned Rule Matrix; model-agnostic per the Model Portability layer.", "observability": "Per-file audit log; cycle-time and escalation-rate tracking.", "deployment": "Landing page deployed as a static site; fulfillment is founder/analyst-operated outside any deployed application.", "security": "Encrypted storage, access-controlled review tooling, role-based access, minimal data retention.", "dr": "Daily backups of Rule Matrix versions, delivered-file records, and the audit log." }, "modules": [ { "name": "Intake & Normalization", "purpose": "Turn a roster upload into a canonical, confidence-scored DelinquencyFile record", "owned_domain": [ "Delinquency roster data", "Confidence scoring" ], "application_services": [ "RosterIntakeService", "FieldNormalizationService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Encrypted object storage", "Intake form/portal" ], "public_interfaces": [ "Secure upload form" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Direct homeowner contact" ], "responsibility": "Normalize and confidence-score every uploaded account before Rule Matrix retrieval", "owned_data": [ "DelinquencyFile.raw", "DelinquencyFile.normalized" ], "events_produced": [ "AccountFlagged", "FieldsNormalized" ], "events_consumed": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "interfaces": [ "RosterIntakeService.submit()" ], "depends_on": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "entities": [ "DelinquencyFile" ], "failure_risks": [ "Low-confidence field silently proceeds to drafting" ], "scaling": "Manual/analyst-assisted at launch; automated parsing later", "future_split_trigger": "Roster volume exceeds manual-review analyst capacity" }, { "name": "Rule Matrix & Retrieval", "purpose": "Maintain and retrieve the versioned, attorney-reviewed state statutory rule set", "owned_domain": [ "State statutory requirements", "Association governing documents/collection policy" ], "application_services": [ "RuleMatrixService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Versioned spreadsheet/lightweight database" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Live-file drafting without an active, non-frozen Rule Matrix version" ], "responsibility": "Serve the correct dated Rule Matrix version for each state and freeze production on any detected statute change", "owned_data": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "events_produced": [ "RuleMatrixVersionUpdated", "RuleMatrixFrozen" ], "events_consumed": [ "AccountFlagged" ], "interfaces": [ "RuleMatrixService.getActiveVersion(state)" ], "depends_on": [], "entities": [ "RuleMatrixVersion" ], "failure_risks": [ "Stale Rule Matrix produces a non-compliant notice" ], "scaling": "New states added only after attorney review + red-team testing", "future_split_trigger": "5+ active states require dedicated per-state reviewer assignment" }, { "name": "Notice Drafting", "purpose": "Draft each required notice grounded in the Rule Matrix and roster data, with inline statutory citations", "owned_domain": [ "Notice text generation" ], "application_services": [ "NoticeDraftingService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "LLM API" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Delivery without Compliance Review sign-off" ], "responsibility": "Produce a citation-grounded draft for Compliance Analyst review", "owned_data": [ "NoticeSequence.drafts" ], "events_produced": [ "NoticeDrafted" ], "events_consumed": [ "FieldsNormalized", "DeadlineSequenceComputed" ], "interfaces": [ "NoticeDraftingService.draft(file, noticeType)" ], "depends_on": [ "Rule Matrix & Retrieval" ], "entities": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "failure_risks": [ "Drafted notice omits a required statutory element" ], "scaling": "Model-agnostic per Model Portability layer", "future_split_trigger": "Multi-state prompt-library complexity exceeds single-template maintainability" }, { "name": "Compliance Review", "purpose": "Statute-checklist review and analyst sign-off before delivery", "owned_domain": [ "Review outcomes", "Exception triage" ], "application_services": [ "ComplianceReviewService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Airtable-class tracker" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Auto-approval without a logged reviewer ID" ], "responsibility": "Gate every notice through 100% human review at launch", "owned_data": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "events_produced": [ "NoticeReviewed", "NoticeApproved", "ExceptionRaised" ], "events_consumed": [ "NoticeDrafted" ], "interfaces": [ "ComplianceReviewService.review(notice)" ], "depends_on": [ "Notice Drafting" ], "entities": [ "ExceptionCase" ], "failure_risks": [ "Misclassified exception proceeds through the automated pipeline" ], "scaling": "Spot-check review only after 100+ reviewed files per state prove the pattern", "future_split_trigger": "Multi-analyst team requires per-state reviewer assignment logic" }, { "name": "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring", "purpose": "Deliver the approved pack and track every downstream statutory date", "owned_domain": [ "Deadline Ledger" ], "application_services": [ "DeliveryService", "DeadlineMonitoringService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Email/portal delivery", "Airtable-class tracker" ], "public_interfaces": [ "Client delivery notification" ], "forbidden_deps": [], "responsibility": "Log a delivery timestamp and schedule the next required notice", "owned_data": [ "NoticeSequence.deliveryLog" ], "events_produced": [ "NoticeDelivered", "DeadlineApproaching", "NextNoticeTriggered" ], "events_consumed": [ "NoticeApproved" ], "interfaces": [ "DeliveryService.deliver(notice)" ], "depends_on": [ "Compliance Review" ], "entities": [ "NoticeSequence" ], "failure_risks": [ "A scheduled next-notice trigger is missed" ], "scaling": "Automated portal delivery replaces email once volume justifies it", "future_split_trigger": "Portfolio-wide dashboard product is built" }, { "name": "Lien Readiness", "purpose": "Assemble the full evidentiary file once a DelinquencyFile completes its Notice Sequence unresolved", "owned_domain": [ "Lien-Ready Packet assembly" ], "application_services": [ "LienPacketService" ], "infra_adapters": [ "HTML-to-PDF templating" ], "public_interfaces": [], "forbidden_deps": [ "Filing or recording a lien (always the client's attorney's action)" ], "responsibility": "Assemble ledger + all notices + proof of timing + legal description for attorney handoff", "owned_data": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "events_produced": [ "LienPacketAssembled", "AttorneyHandoffLogged" ], "events_consumed": [ "AccountResolved is absent; NextNoticeTriggered exhausted" ], "interfaces": [ "LienPacketService.assemble(file)" ], "depends_on": [ "Delivery & Deadline Monitoring" ], "entities": [ "LienReadyPacket" ], "failure_risks": [ "Invalid lien if the packet is incomplete" ], "scaling": "Always attorney-reviewed, never spot-checked regardless of automation maturity", "future_split_trigger": "White-labeled delivery for attorney partners is built" } ], "data_architecture": { "primary_db": "A lightweight structured store (spreadsheet/Airtable-class database at launch) holding DelinquencyFile, NoticeSequence, and RuleMatrixVersion records.", "cache": "No caching layer at launch-stage volume; the Rule Matrix is small enough to hold in memory per drafting session.", "search": "Not applicable at launch — the Rule Matrix is retrieved by state + association, not searched.", "vector": "Not used at launch-stage volume; Rule Matrix retrieval is a small, structured lookup rather than a large embedding search.", "object_storage": "Encrypted object storage holds uploaded rosters, governing documents, and delivered PDF packs.", "schema_strategy": "The canonical DelinquencyFile schema (owner, unit, balance, aging, prior-notice history) is fixed at launch; new fields are added only with a corresponding Rule Matrix or template update.", "migrations": "Rule Matrix schema changes are versioned and attorney-reviewed before any live file drafts against the new version.", "backups": "Rule Matrix versions, delivered files, and the audit log are backed up daily with versioned retention.", "retention": "Launch-stage approach: retention is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "audit_logs": "Launch-stage approach: audit logs is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "soft_delete": "Client-requested data deletion is honored per the retention policy in compliance-checklist.md; audit-log entries are retained for the defensibility period even after underlying roster data is purged.", "privacy": "Minimal retention, encrypted storage, and access limited to the analysts actively working a given file; see compliance-checklist.md.", "encryption": "Roster and governing-document data are encrypted at rest and in transit; access limited to the Compliance Analyst(s) actively working a file.", "multi_tenancy": "Logical per-client partitioning at launch-stage volume; no shared database rows are ever exposed across CAM company clients.", "secondary": [ "None at launch — a single lightweight structured store is sufficient at pilot volume" ] }, "api": { "style": "Launch-stage approach: style is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "public_vs_internal": "No public API at launch — the intake form/portal is the only external surface.", "versioning": "Rule Matrix versions are dated and attorney-reviewed; every delivered file records the version it was drafted against.", "rate_limiting": "Intake form submissions are rate-limited to prevent bulk-abuse uploads unrelated to a real pilot client.", "idempotency": "Each DelinquencyFile's notice-drafting request is keyed to a unique file+notice-type+Rule-Matrix-version identifier to prevent duplicate delivery.", "pagination": "Not applicable — no public listing API at launch.", "error_format": "Internal tooling only at launch; no public API error contract yet.", "webhook_security": "Not applicable — no webhooks at launch-stage manual fulfillment.", "retries": "A failed drafting call retries once, then routes to manual analyst drafting.", "contract_testing": "Not applicable at launch-stage manual fulfillment.", "backward_compat": "Not applicable at launch-stage manual fulfillment; relevant once a client portal is built.", "contract_testing_plan": "Deferred until a client portal API exists; today the client-facing surface is a form and PDF delivery, not an API." }, "security": { "authn": "Client accounts authenticate via a single verified login per CAM company; no homeowner-facing authentication exists because CureClock never contacts homeowners directly.", "authz": "Role-based access: Compliance Analyst (review/approve), Compliance Lead (rule-matrix changes), Client (view/download own files only) — enforced at the application layer.", "tenant_isolation": "Each CAM company's roster, governing documents, and delivered files are logically partitioned by client ID; no cross-client data access in the review tooling.", "secrets": "LLM API keys and storage credentials are held outside the codebase in environment-level secret storage, never committed or logged.", "encryption": "Roster and governing-document data are encrypted at rest and in transit; access limited to the Compliance Analyst(s) actively working a file.", "session": "Short-lived authenticated sessions for the founder/analyst review tooling; no persistent homeowner session exists.", "input_validation": "Uploaded rosters are schema-validated on intake; malformed or incomplete rows route to the Exception Queue rather than silently drafting against bad data.", "api_protection": "Not a public API at launch — intake is a single authenticated form/portal; rate limiting applies to the intake endpoint to prevent bulk-abuse uploads.", "audit_log": "Every document generation, review, correction, and delivery event is timestamped and retained in an append-only audit log.", "admin_access": "Limited to the founder/compliance lead; no third-party admin access to client roster data.", "supply_chain": "LLM provider and PDF-templating dependencies are pinned and reviewed before any version bump touches a live client file.", "zero_trust": "Every review-tooling access is authenticated and scoped to the specific client file in progress; no standing broad access to all client data.", "asvs_notes": "Launch-stage controls map informally to OWASP ASVS Level 1; formal ASVS review is deferred until custom software (beyond the founder-operated tooling) is built.", "threat_model": [ "Roster tampering in transit", "Unauthorized access to homeowner PII", "Stale Rule Matrix producing a non-compliant notice", "Impersonation of a CAM company at intake" ], "abuse_cases": [ "A non-client attempts to submit a roster for an association it does not manage", "A client attempts to bypass Compliance Analyst review to speed delivery" ] }, "reliability": { "graceful_degradation": "If the LLM workbench is unavailable, the Compliance Analyst can draft manually from the template library and Rule Matrix directly — the business does not stop when the AI layer is down.", "retry_policy": "A failed LLM drafting call retries once automatically, then routes to manual analyst drafting rather than retrying indefinitely against a possibly-bad prompt.", "timeouts": "Drafting calls time out and fail closed rather than deliver a partial or unreviewed notice.", "circuit_breaker": "LLM API calls fail closed — a failed draft routes the file to manual analyst drafting rather than delivering an unreviewed or partial notice.", "queueing": "A simple per-file work queue (Airtable-class tracker) orders files by intake time and statutory urgency.", "idempotency": "Each DelinquencyFile's notice-drafting request is keyed to a unique file+notice-type+Rule-Matrix-version identifier to prevent duplicate delivery.", "dlq": "Failed drafting attempts are logged for analyst follow-up rather than silently retried against stale data.", "transactions": "A DelinquencyFile only advances state (e.g., to 'delivered') after its PDF generation and Compliance Analyst sign-off both complete; partial states are visible in the audit log.", "dr": "Rule Matrix and delivered-file records are backed up daily; recovery target is same-business-day given launch-stage volume.", "incident_response": "A documented breach-notification and root-cause process exists from day one, per compliance-checklist.md.", "failure_modes": [ "LLM API unavailable — falls back to manual analyst drafting", "Roster upload malformed — routes to manual review instead of silent misparse" ], "slos": [ { "name": "Cycle time (intake to delivery)", "target": "24-48 hours" }, { "name": "Missed statutory deadlines", "target": "Zero" } ] }, "scaling": { "mvp_can_stay_simple": [ "Client portal (email/form delivery suffices at pilot volume)", "Search (Rule Matrix lookup is by state+association, not full-text)" ], "modular_now": [ "Rule Matrix versioning", "Exception Queue routing", "Audit log" ], "deferrable": [ "Client-facing portal UI", "Automated roster parsing", "Multi-analyst reviewer-assignment logic" ], "breaks_first": "Founder-as-sole-analyst throughput (~25-30 files/day) breaks before any infrastructure component does.", "db_path": "Spreadsheet/Airtable-class store → lightweight managed database once client count exceeds ~20.", "jobs_path": "Manual Deadline Ledger checks → scheduled background jobs once file volume exceeds manual tracking capacity.", "cache_path": "Not needed at launch volume.", "search_path": "Not needed at launch volume.", "files_path": "Encrypted object storage from day one; no migration needed at this scale.", "api_path": "No public API until a client portal is built post-pilot.", "multi_region": "Not applicable — single-region, Texas-only launch.", "cost_control": "LLM inference cost tracked per file against the flat per-file price to protect gross margin." }, "ai": { "provider": "Launch-stage approach: provider is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "prompt_mgmt": "Launch-stage approach: prompt mgmt is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "rag": "Launch-stage approach: rag is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "vector": "Not used at launch-stage volume; Rule Matrix retrieval is a small, structured lookup rather than a large embedding search.", "embeddings": "Launch-stage approach: embeddings is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "eval": "Launch-stage approach: eval is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "hitl": "Launch-stage approach: hitl is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "guardrails": "Launch-stage approach: guardrails is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "prompt_injection": "Launch-stage approach: prompt injection is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "leakage": "Launch-stage approach: leakage is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "fallback": "Launch-stage approach: fallback is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "latency_cost": "Launch-stage approach: latency cost is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "memory": "Launch-stage approach: memory is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "tool_permissions": "Launch-stage approach: tool permissions is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "auditability": "Launch-stage approach: auditability is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "citation": "Launch-stage approach: citation is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern." }, "devops": { "cicd": "Rule Matrix and prompt-template changes are versioned and attorney-reviewed before use rather than continuously deployed.", "iac": "Not applicable at launch-stage manual/semi-manual fulfillment.", "secrets": "LLM API keys and storage credentials are held outside the codebase in environment-level secret storage, never committed or logged.", "preview_envs": "Not applicable at launch-stage volume.", "migrations": "Rule Matrix schema changes are versioned and attorney-reviewed before any live file drafts against the new version.", "rollback": "A Rule Matrix version can be reverted to the prior attorney-reviewed version if a change is found to be in error; every delivered file records which version it used.", "release_style": "Versioned Rule Matrix and template updates, reviewed by counsel before activation — not a continuous-release software product at launch.", "feature_flags": "Not applicable at launch-stage manual fulfillment.", "monitoring": "Cycle-time (intake to delivery) and escalation-rate tracking per delivery-playbook.md.", "alerting": "A missed or approaching Deadline Ledger date alerts the Compliance Analyst directly; there is no unattended automated alerting pipeline at launch-stage volume.", "logs": "Append-only audit log of every generation, review, correction, and delivery event per file.", "error_tracking": "Failed drafting attempts and low-confidence extractions are logged for analyst follow-up and the Learning Loop.", "uptime": "Not applicable in the SaaS-uptime sense at launch — the intake form/portal is the only always-on surface; fulfillment is founder/analyst-driven, not real-time automated.", "cost_monitoring": "LLM inference cost tracked per file (~$0.50-$2 at launch) against the flat per-file price to protect the gross-margin target.", "environments": [ "Founder-operated production intake/drafting workspace", "Attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix staging for new-state activation" ] }, "testing": { "unit": "Deterministic date-math (deadline computation) is unit-tested against known statutory scenarios (e.g., Texas 45-day cure, 30-day lien-notice spacing, 90-day lien wait) before any state goes live.", "integration": "End-to-end test: roster upload → normalization → drafting → Compliance Analyst review → delivery, run against a synthetic Texas delinquency roster before onboarding a new pilot client.", "contract": "Not applicable — no external API contract exists at launch-stage fulfillment.", "e2e": "Full pilot-file walkthrough tested manually by the founder-as-analyst before the first paid Cure Notice Pack is delivered.", "security": "Access-control and encrypted-storage checks reviewed before intake of the first live client roster.", "a11y": "Landing page tested against WCAG 2.2 AA per DESIGN-STANDARD §6/§10 — contrast, keyboard walk, skip link, reduced-motion.", "load": "Not applicable at pilot-cohort volume (5 clients, 10 files each in cycle one).", "chaos": "Not applicable at launch-stage volume; deferred until automation/custom software is built.", "migration": "Rule Matrix schema changes are tested against the gold-standard example library before any live file uses the new version.", "backup_restore": "Rule Matrix and delivered-file backups are restore-tested before the first multi-state expansion.", "ai_eval": "Every drafted notice is compared against the retrieved statute and roster data for internal consistency (AI self-check) before Compliance Analyst review.", "test_data": "Synthetic Texas delinquency rosters and known statutory edge cases (out-of-state owner, deceased owner, active bankruptcy, disputed charge) form the red-team test set." }, "observability": { "logs": "Append-only audit log of every generation, review, correction, and delivery event per file.", "metrics": "Launch-stage approach: metrics is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "traces": "Per-file processing steps (intake → normalization → drafting → review → delivery) are logged with timestamps for cycle-time analysis.", "audit_events": "Every DelinquencyFile state transition (flagged, normalized, drafted, reviewed, delivered, closed/escalated) is a retained audit event.", "business_events": "domain.diagnostic_requested, domain.pricing_viewed — the same data-event taxonomy used on the landing page (see ai-engine-spec.md).", "error_tracking": "Failed drafting attempts and low-confidence extractions are logged for analyst follow-up and the Learning Loop.", "security_monitoring": "Access to client roster data is logged and reviewable by the compliance lead.", "cost_monitoring": "LLM inference cost tracked per file (~$0.50-$2 at launch) against the flat per-file price to protect the gross-margin target.", "dashboards": [ "Cycle-time (intake-to-delivery) view", "Escalation-rate (Exception Queue volume) view", "Gross-margin-per-file trend" ], "alert_thresholds": [ "Any missed statutory deadline (zero-tolerance)", "Rework rate exceeding 10%", "Escalation rate exceeding 15%" ], "triage": "A missed-deadline alert goes directly to the Compliance Lead for same-day root-cause review; a rework-rate alert triggers a workflow review per launch-plan.md." }, "adrs": [ { "id": "ADR-1", "decision": "Draft-only MVP — CureClock never contacts the homeowner directly", "status": "Accepted", "context": "FDCPA applicability to third-party assessment collectors is legally contested but real", "options": [ "Draft-only (client sends/signs)", "Full-service collector-of-record model" ], "chosen": "Draft-only", "business_reason": "Avoids the debt-collector-of-record trust burden and reduces regulatory classification risk during the MVP phase", "technical_reason": "Simplifies the system boundary — no homeowner-facing communication channel needed", "tradeoffs": "Slower path to a full-service 'fully managed send' tier, but much lower launch-stage regulatory risk", "risks": [ "Market may eventually demand a managed-send tier" ], "revisit_trigger": "20+ pilot clients ask for fully-managed send with counsel-reviewed safeguards", "why": "Matches the blueprint's explicit MVP design choice", "consequences": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "reversal": "Would require a new bounded context and separate counsel review", "revisit_when": "Post-20-pilot-checkpoint, if client demand is strong and counsel signs off" }, { "id": "ADR-2", "decision": "Deterministic date-math engine for all statutory deadlines, never LLM-computed", "status": "Accepted", "context": "A missed or miscalculated deadline is the single highest-impact failure mode", "options": [ "LLM-computed dates", "Deterministic rule-engine dates" ], "chosen": "Deterministic rule-engine dates", "business_reason": "Zero-missed-deadline is the hard-floor KPI", "technical_reason": "Date math is a solved, verifiable problem; LLMs introduce unnecessary variance", "tradeoffs": "Requires explicit engineering of each state's date-math rules before that state can go live", "risks": [ "A coding error in the deterministic engine itself" ], "revisit_trigger": "Never — permanent architectural constraint", "why": "Matches the blueprint's Internal AI Engine Architecture layer 5", "consequences": "Every new state requires explicit date-math implementation", "reversal": "Not planned", "revisit_when": "N/A" } ], "anti_overengineering": { "flagged": [ { "item": "Building a full multi-tenant client portal at launch", "simpler": "Email/secure-portal delivery of PDFs", "why": "5-client pilot cohort does not justify portal build cost yet" }, { "item": "Vector search over the Rule Matrix", "simpler": "Direct state+association lookup", "why": "The Rule Matrix is small and structured; a lookup is sufficient" } ] }, "audit": { "compliance": "Strong — the entire architecture exists to serve the compliance/audit-trail requirement", "cost": "Low at launch (off-the-shelf tools only)", "dx": "Simple for a solo founder-operated workflow", "extensibility": "New states require explicit Rule Matrix + date-math work, which is intentional friction, not a gap", "maintainability": "High at this scale; revisit once multi-analyst teams are needed", "ops_burden": "Medium — founder-as-analyst is the main operational load", "performance": "Not a bottleneck at pilot volume", "product_fit": "Strong fit for the narrow MVP wedge", "reliability": "Deterministic date-math and 100% human review keep the zero-missed-deadline guarantee credible", "scalability": "Deferred by design until pilot volume justifies investment", "security": "Encrypted storage and role-based access are proportionate to launch-stage risk", "simplicity": "High — deliberately avoids custom software at launch", "team_suitability": "Matches a single founder-operated MVP", "time_to_market": "Fast — no custom software blocks the first paid file", "recommendation": { "ai_approach": "Retrieval-grounded LLM drafting against a versioned Rule Matrix, model-agnostic", "auth": "Single verified account per client, role-based access", "avoid": [ "Custom multi-tenant portal before volume justifies it" ], "biggest_risks": [ "Missed statutory deadline", "Stale Rule Matrix" ], "build_first": [ "Rule Matrix", "Deterministic date-math engine", "Compliance Review gate" ], "database": "Lightweight structured store (Airtable-class) at launch", "first_10_steps": [ "See product.executive_review.first_10_steps" ], "hosting": "Static landing page; founder-operated tooling otherwise", "integrations": "LLM API; HTML-to-PDF templating", "revisit_later": [ "Client portal", "Vector search (unlikely ever needed)" ], "stack": "Airtable-class tracker + LLM API + HTML-to-PDF templating + encrypted storage", "style": "Founder-operated manual/semi-manual pipeline", "top_10_rules": [ "Never let the LLM compute a deadline", "Never skip Compliance Review at launch", "Never spot-check a Lien-Ready Packet" ], "verdict": "Right-sized for a 5-client pilot cohort" } }, "backend": { "framework": "Launch-stage approach: framework is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "layering": "Launch-stage approach: layering is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "domain": "Launch-stage approach: domain is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "services": "Launch-stage approach: services is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "repositories": "Launch-stage approach: repositories is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "validation": "Launch-stage approach: validation is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "errors": "Launch-stage approach: errors is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "events": "Launch-stage approach: events is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "jobs": "Launch-stage approach: jobs is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "scheduled": "Launch-stage approach: scheduled is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "files": "Launch-stage approach: files is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "email_sms": "Launch-stage approach: email sms is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "logging": "Launch-stage approach: logging is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "config": "Launch-stage approach: config is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "di": "Launch-stage approach: di is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "authorization": "Launch-stage approach: authorization is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "testing": "Launch-stage approach: testing is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern." }, "cost": { "drivers": [ { "name": "LLM inference", "note": "$0.50-$2 per file at launch" }, { "name": "Compliance Analyst time", "note": "12 min/file at launch, falling to 5 min by day 90" } ], "controls": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "likely_traps": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "diagrams": { "ai_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the ai flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "auth_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the auth flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "authz_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the authz flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "background_job_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the background job — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "container_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the container — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "context_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the context — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "data_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the data flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "deployment_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the deployment — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "event_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the event flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "failure_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the failure flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation.", "multi_tenant_flow_mermaid": "See ai-engine-spec.md's AI-vs-human pipeline narrative for the multi tenant flow — no rendered diagram file at launch-stage documentation." }, "frontend": { "framework": "Launch-stage approach: framework is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "rendering": "Launch-stage approach: rendering is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "routing": "Launch-stage approach: routing is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "state": "Launch-stage approach: state is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "server_state": "Launch-stage approach: server state is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "forms": "Launch-stage approach: forms is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "components": "Launch-stage approach: components is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "design_system": "Launch-stage approach: design system is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "a11y": "Landing page tested against WCAG 2.2 AA per DESIGN-STANDARD §6/§10 — contrast, keyboard walk, skip link, reduced-motion.", "i18n": "Launch-stage approach: i18n is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "performance": "Launch-stage approach: performance is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "offline": "Launch-stage approach: offline is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "realtime": "Launch-stage approach: realtime is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "auth_ui": "Launch-stage approach: auth ui is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "authz_aware_ui": "Launch-stage approach: authz aware ui is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "bundling": "Launch-stage approach: bundling is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "error_handling": "Launch-stage approach: error handling is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern.", "testing": "Launch-stage approach: testing is handled through the LLM drafting workbench with retrieval grounding against the versioned Rule Matrix, the Airtable-class Deadline Ledger tracker, server-side HTML-to-PDF templating, and encrypted intake storage, scoped to the pilot cohort's volume (5 CAM companies, 10 files each in cycle one) rather than a general-purpose platform pattern." }, "multi_tenancy": { "model": "Logical per-client partitioning (not a shared-schema multi-tenant SaaS pattern) at launch volume", "isolation": "Each CAM company's data is scoped by client ID in the Airtable-class tracker", "tenant_config": "Per-client Rule Matrix state assignment (Texas only at launch)", "tenant_aware_authz": "Compliance Analyst/Compliance Lead roles scoped to the files they're assigned", "tenant_rate_limits": "Not applicable at launch volume", "noisy_neighbor": "Not applicable — manual/analyst-driven throughput, not shared compute", "tenant_export": "A client can request its own delivered files and audit-log excerpt at any time", "tenant_deletion": "Per compliance-checklist.md's data-retention rule", "tenant_audit": "Every file's audit log is scoped to its owning client", "branding": "Client-branded PDF delivery (CAM company's own letterhead)", "billing": "Per-file/per-sequence/monthly retainer billing per offer-and-pricing.md", "why_this_fits": "A 5-20 client pilot cohort does not need a shared-schema multi-tenant database; logical partitioning in a lightweight tracker is sufficient and safer at this scale." }, "privacy_compliance": { "data_classification": "Homeowner PII (restricted), governing documents (confidential), audit logs (retained, access-controlled)", "minimization": "Only roster/governing-document fields needed to produce the engaged deliverables are retained", "consent": "Client engagement letter scopes data use to document production only", "residency": "US-only, no cross-border data transfer", "retention": "Per compliance-checklist.md — disclosed to each client at intake", "right_to_delete": "Honored per the retention policy, with audit-log entries retained for the defensibility period", "right_to_export": "A client can request its own delivered files at any time", "breach_response": "Documented incident-response plan from day one", "access_logs": "Every access to client roster data is logged", "admin_controls": "Limited to the founder/compliance lead", "audit_trails": "Every generation, review, correction, and delivery event is timestamped and retained", "vendor_risk": "LLM API provider is the primary third-party data processor; reviewed for data-handling terms before use", "sensitive_handling": "Encrypted at rest and in transit; access limited to analysts actively working the file", "legal_hold": "Not applicable at launch — would be handled per counsel guidance if litigation arises", "evidence_collection": "The audit trail itself is the evidence-collection mechanism supporting both client and CureClock defensibility", "boundaries": "CureClock never contacts homeowners directly, per the draft-only MVP design" }, "risks": [ { "risk": "Missed statutory deadline", "category": "Compliance", "likelihood": "Low", "impact": "High", "detection": "Deadline Ledger monitoring", "mitigation": "Deterministic date-math engine, 100% human review", "fallback": "Immediate root-cause review, client fee refund per the zero-missed-deadline guarantee", "escalation": "Compliance Lead + counsel", "owner": "Compliance Lead" }, { "risk": "Stale Rule Matrix", "category": "Compliance", "likelihood": "Medium", "impact": "High", "detection": "Legislative-update monitoring agent", "mitigation": "Freeze-on-signal policy", "fallback": "Pause new-file production for that state", "escalation": "Compliance Lead + attorney", "owner": "Compliance Lead" } ], "roadmap": [ { "phase": "Cycle one", "weeks": "Weeks 1-4", "build": [ "Rule Matrix", "Deterministic date-math engine", "Intake form" ], "defer": [ "Client portal", "Automated roster parsing" ], "avoid": [ "Custom multi-tenant platform" ], "monitor": [ "Cycle time", "Missed deadlines" ], "acceptable_debt": [ "Manual roster parsing" ], "dangerous_debt": [ "Skipping Compliance Analyst review to speed delivery" ], "triggers_to_change": [ "5-pilot checkpoint clears" ], "outcomes": [ "First paid Cure Notice Pack files delivered" ], "exit_criteria": "Zero missed deadlines through 5 pilots", "kill_criteria": "Any missed statutory deadline" } ], "rules": [ "Deadline math is never computed by the LLM", "No file bypasses Compliance Review at launch", "No Lien-Ready Packet is ever spot-checked" ] }, "design": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "archetypes": [ "Compliance production desk", "Document-of-record ledger" ], "user_mindset": { "goals": "Confirm CureClock will not miss a statutory deadline before uploading a real roster", "session_length": "Short — a few minutes to scan the offer and submit a roster; not a return-daily tool", "confidence": "Liability-conscious, skeptical of hype, reassured by specific statute citations", "interface_needs": "Fast scanning of pricing, guarantee, and compliance boundary before any form submission" }, "posture": [ "Document-of-record", "Precise", "Understated authority" ], "density": "Medium — enough white space to read statute citations comfortably, but information-dense stat strip and pricing table", "trust_level": { "tier": "High (YMYL-adjacent — financial/legal compliance)", "sensitive_domains": [ "Homeowner financial data", "Legal compliance claims" ], "implications": [ "Every compliance claim must cite the specific statute", "No fabricated proof; honest placeholder slots only", "Disclaimers required on every deliverable and the landing page" ] }, "differentiation": { "avoid": [ "Generic blue/purple SaaS gradient look", "Stock legal-tech photography", "Contingency-agency aggressive tone" ], "strategy": "A 'ledger green + notarial gold + aged paper' document-of-record palette that reads as precise and audit-grade rather than as a generic AI startup." }, "territories": [ { "name": "Ledger & ink (chosen)", "color_mood": "Deep ledger green, notarial gold-brown accent, aged-paper surface", "typography": "System-serif-adjacent display for headings, clean system-sans for body", "density": "Medium", "component_feel": "Bordered cards resembling a filed document, not rounded SaaS bubbles", "motion": "Minimal — respects prefers-reduced-motion fully", "fits": "A compliance/document-production business where trust and precision matter more than energy", "risks": "Could read as slightly formal/cold if overused without any warmth in copy" }, { "name": "Bright civic-tech blue", "color_mood": "Blue/white, government-portal feel", "typography": "Clean sans throughout", "density": "Low", "component_feel": "Rounded cards, soft shadows", "motion": "Standard SaaS micro-interactions", "fits": "A consumer-facing civic-tech tool", "risks": "Reads identically to dozens of other compliance SaaS landing pages — rejected for lacking distinctiveness" } ], "chosen_territory": "Ledger & ink", "chosen_rationale": "CureClock sells an audit-trail, document-of-record outcome to a liability-conscious buyer; the palette and type should read as precise and permanent, not as a trendy SaaS dashboard.", "prioritized_components": [ { "name": "Stat strip", "why": "CAM principals scan for hard numbers (373,000 associations, $103.3B assessments) before reading prose" }, { "name": "Pricing table with guarantee beside it", "why": "Trust cues must sit where risk perception peaks, per DESIGN-STANDARD §8" }, { "name": "Deadline Ledger status badges (domain-state tokens)", "why": "Visualizes the Intake → Evidence → Review → Release lifecycle the buyer already thinks in" } ], "tokens": { "brand": "#0F3B33", "brand-fg": "#F4F1E8", "surface": "#FBF9F3", "ink": "#1B2420", "muted": "#5B6660", "accent": "#C7862B" }, "type": { "display": "system-ui, Georgia, serif fallback for headings", "body": "system-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, sans-serif", "fonts_url": "none — system font stack only, no external font requests" }, "signature": { "motif": "A dashed deadline-ledger line motif echoing a filed-document tab", "render": "CSS-only border/dash treatment, no images or icons requiring external requests" }, "patterns": [ { "name": "Statute-cited stat strip", "description": "Every headline number is paired with its precise source name, never a bare number" }, { "name": "Domain-state status badges", "description": "Uses --state-ok/--state-risk/--state-pending/--state-blocked tokens for any lifecycle or deadline-proximity indicator" } ], "states": [ "ok (on-time/compliant)", "risk (approaching deadline / elevated delinquency)", "pending (awaiting review/client action)", "blocked (exception queue / escalated to attorney)" ], "uniqueness_audit": { "app_specific_decisions": [ "Ledger-green/notarial-gold palette tied specifically to the document-of-record positioning", "Stat strip cites Onyx Capital/FCAR by name rather than generic 'industry data'", "Pricing table pairs each tier with the exact guarantee/out-clause language from offer-and-pricing.md" ], "cliches_avoided": [ "No 'AI-Native Blueprint' page title", "No hero gradient blob", "No stock handshake/photo imagery" ], "scale_notes": "Palette and component set are reusable across future-state expansion pages (Florida/Colorado) without redesign — only the Rule Matrix content changes." }, "localization": [ "en-US only at launch — Texas single-state MVP" ] }, "seo": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "archetype": "Compliance production desk", "archetype_impact": "YMYL-adjacent; every ranking page must cite the specific statute rather than paraphrase it, and every page needs the compliance disclaimer.", "authority_dna": { "site_archetype": "Vendor/service site with a statute-cited content hub", "monetization_model": "Direct service purchase (per-file, per-sequence, retainer)", "main_search_intents": [ "informational (statute explainers)", "commercial (vendor comparison)", "transactional (free scan)" ], "topical_authority_opportunity": "Texas HOA/condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance, expanding state-by-state as Rule Matrices go live", "local_seo_opportunity": "Low at launch — CAM companies are found by state, not by city, though CAI local chapters are a relevant local-event channel", "global_national_opportunity": "National once multi-state Rule Matrices exist; single-state (Texas) at launch", "easiest_ranking_path": "The free-scan landing page and the exact-statute pillar page, both currently thin in the SERP", "hardest_ranking_path": "Generic 'hoa collections' head terms dominated by established law firms and agencies with years of domain authority", "trust_credibility_requirements": [ "Direct statutory citations on every claim", "Compliance disclaimer on every page", "No fabricated proof/testimonials" ], "ymyl": true, "expert_review_needed": true, "site_structure": "Homepage (landing page) -> pillar guides (per state) -> comparison/objection pages -> blueprint dossier", "seo_moat": "The maintained, attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix content is genuinely hard for a generic content farm to replicate credibly." }, "search_market": { "primary_markets": [ "Texas CAM companies" ], "secondary_markets": [ "Florida, California, Colorado CAM companies (post second-state expansion)" ], "low_competition_subtopics": [ "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan", "cure notice pack pricing" ], "high_commercial_intent": [ "hoa assessment delinquency collection agency", "flat fee hoa collections" ], "informational": [ "texas hoa cure notice requirements", "fdcpa hoa assessment collection" ], "local_intent": [ "cai texas chapter hoa vendors" ], "transactional": [ "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan" ], "comparison": [ "hoa assessment delinquency collection agency" ], "problem_solution": [ "missed hoa cure notice deadline" ], "near_me": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "long_tail": [ "what happens if hoa lien notice sent one day early texas" ], "questions": [ "is hoa collection subject to fdcpa", "how many days notice before hoa lien texas" ], "emerging": [ "florida sirs milestone inspection delinquency" ], "seasonal": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "underserved_serps": [ "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan" ], "weak_serps": [ "texas hoa cure notice requirements" ], "forum_dominated_serps": [ "hoa delinquency rate reddit" ], "winnable_authoritative_serps": [ "texas hoa cure notice requirements" ], "avoid_initially": [ "generic hoa management software reviews" ], "easy_wins": [ "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan" ], "moderate": [ "fdcpa hoa assessment collection" ], "long_term_plays": [ "non-warrantable condo delinquency rate" ], "do_not_pursue": [ "generic hoa violation enforcement (different business elsewhere in the portfolio)" ] }, "keyword_clusters": [ { "primary": "texas hoa cure notice requirements", "related": [ "texas property code 209.006", "hoa 45 day notice texas", "hoa cure notice template" ], "intent": "informational", "user_problem": "CAM staff need to know exactly what the 45-day cure notice must contain", "funnel": "top", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "medium", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Dominated by law-firm blog posts, few CAM-specific practical guides", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "pillar page", "reason": "Directly matches CureClock's core deliverable and statute citation", "priority_score": 92, "priority": "high", "bucket": "easy_wins" }, { "primary": "hoa assessment delinquency collection agency", "related": [ "hoa collections company", "flat fee hoa collections", "hoa contingency collections" ], "intent": "commercial", "user_problem": "CAM companies comparing collection vendors", "funnel": "middle", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "high", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Competitor pages dominate but rarely explain the draft-only/compliance-vendor distinction", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "comparison page", "reason": "Captures buyers already shopping for a vendor in this category", "priority_score": 88, "priority": "high", "bucket": "moderate" }, { "primary": "fdcpa hoa assessment collection", "related": [ "is hoa collection fdcpa", "hoa debt collector fdcpa exemption" ], "intent": "informational", "user_problem": "CAM companies worried about FDCPA exposure once they hire outside help", "funnel": "top", "business_value": "medium", "ranking_difficulty": "low", "conversion_potential": "medium", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Law-firm and trade-association pages dominate; CAM-practitioner-voice content is thin", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "guide page", "reason": "Establishes CureClock's compliance credibility on the exact regulatory question buyers worry about", "priority_score": 81, "priority": "medium", "bucket": "moderate" }, { "primary": "hoa lien notice sequence texas", "related": [ "texas hoa lien process", "hoa lien 90 day wait" ], "intent": "informational", "user_problem": "Understanding the two-step lien notice and 90-day wait mechanics", "funnel": "middle", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "medium", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Thin, generic explainer content; few sources walk the full worked timeline", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "guide page", "reason": "Directly supports the Full Notice-to-Lien-Ready Sequence offer", "priority_score": 79, "priority": "medium", "bucket": "moderate" }, { "primary": "non-warrantable condo delinquency rate", "related": [ "15 percent hoa delinquency non-warrantable", "hoa delinquency fannie mae" ], "intent": "informational", "user_problem": "Board-level urgency around financing risk from high delinquency", "funnel": "top", "business_value": "medium", "ranking_difficulty": "low", "conversion_potential": "low", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Mortgage-industry content dominates; CAM-specific angle is underused", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "blog post", "reason": "Widens the buyer's reason to act beyond the collections department alone", "priority_score": 68, "priority": "low", "bucket": "long_term_plays" }, { "primary": "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan", "related": [ "free hoa deadline risk scan", "hoa portfolio deadline check" ], "intent": "transactional", "user_problem": "A CAM company wants to know its current deadline exposure immediately", "funnel": "bottom", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "high", "conversion_potential": "low", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "No existing competitor publishes this exact free-scan offer", "local_relevance": "Texas-specific at launch", "global_relevance": "Low at launch (single-state MVP)", "suggested_page_type": "landing page", "reason": "This is the primary lead magnet and should own its own exact-match landing page", "priority_score": 95, "priority": "high", "bucket": "easy_wins" } ], "topical_authority_map": { "core_topics": [ "Texas HOA/condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance", "FDCPA applicability to HOA collections", "Lien-ready packet assembly" ], "pillars": [ { "name": "Texas HOA Cure Notice Requirements", "core_intent": "informational", "audience": "CAM collections coordinators", "conversion_goal": "Free scan request", "supporting_pages": [ "FDCPA explainer", "Lien notice sequence guide" ], "internal_links": [ "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk" ], "schema": [ "Article" ], "evidence_needed": [ "Direct Prop. Code §209.006 citation" ], "local_variants": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "national_variants": [ "Florida", "California", "Colorado (post-expansion)" ] } ], "supporting_page_types": [ "Statute explainer", "Vendor comparison", "FAQ page" ] }, "site_architecture": { "homepage_strategy": "Homepage IS the landing page (site/index.html) — the free-scan CTA is the primary conversion path, per DESIGN-STANDARD bounded-context IA", "main_nav": [ "Home", "How it works", "Pricing", "FAQ", "Blueprint dossier" ], "footer_nav": [ "Compliance disclaimers", "Blueprint dossier link" ], "hubs": [ { "name": "Texas compliance hub", "purpose": "House all Texas statute-explainer content", "url": "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements" } ], "url_patterns": [ "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "/fdcpa-hoa-assessment-collection" ], "avoid_url_patterns": [ "/blog/post-1 (non-descriptive slugs)" ] }, "global_national": { "national_clusters": [ "Multi-state Rule Matrix expansion content" ], "linkable_assets": [ "Free 50-State HOA Notice Deadline Cheat Sheet" ], "original_research_ideas": [ "Anonymized aggregate cycle-time and rework-rate data once pilot cohort completes" ], "international_needed": false, "international_notes": "Not applicable — US state-statute-specific business" }, "local_seo": { "justified": false, "reason": "Buyers are found by state/CAI-chapter membership, not by city-level local search", "gbp_categories_primary": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "gbp_categories_secondary": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "location_page_rules": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "citations": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "review_strategy": "No fabricated reviews; honest placeholder proof slots until pilot results exist", "local_schema": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "programmatic": { "recommended": false, "reason": "Single-state MVP with a small, high-quality content set; programmatic pages would outrun what the business can substantively support at launch", "rules": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "per_page_requirements": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "quality_gates": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "page_templates": [ { "page_type": "Statute pillar guide", "purpose": "Establish topical authority on a specific state's notice-and-cure statute", "target_intent": "informational", "url_pattern": "/{state}-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "title_pattern": "{State} HOA Cure Notice Requirements, Explained", "meta_description_pattern": "What CAM companies in {state} must include in a compliant cure notice, with direct statutory citations.", "h1_pattern": "{State} HOA Cure Notice Requirements, Explained", "outline": [ "What the statute requires", "Timing mechanics", "Consequences of a missed deadline", "How CureClock handles it" ], "above_the_fold": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "internal_links": [ "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk" ], "schema": [ "Article" ], "cta_strategy": "Free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "conversion_elements": [ "Inline CTA after the deadline-mechanics section" ], "trust_elements": [ "Direct statute citation", "Compliance disclaimer" ], "faq_opportunities": [ "What happens if a notice is sent one day late?" ], "media": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "quality_requirements": [ "Must cite the specific statutory section, not paraphrase" ], "anti_thin_rules": [ "Minimum one worked example per page" ] } ], "on_page_rules": { "title_tag": "Include the state, the notice type, and 'explained' or 'requirements'", "meta_description": "Include the specific statutory citation where possible", "headings": "One H1 matching the title; H2s per outline section", "intro": "State the statutory citation in the first paragraph", "snippet_targeting": "Answer the exact question in the first sentence after the relevant H2", "tables_lists": "Use a table for multi-step notice sequences (Texas: first notice, spacing, second notice, wait period)", "images": "None required — text/citation-first content, no external image requests to keep pages lightweight", "internal_links": "Every pillar links to the free-scan landing page at least once", "external_citations": "Link to the primary statute source (Texas State Law Library / statutes.capitol.texas.gov) directly", "author_attribution": "Founder byline with compliance-analyst role disclosed", "freshness": "Re-verified against primary statutory text whenever a legislative-update signal is detected", "cta_placement": "After the deadline-mechanics section and again at the end", "mobile": "Single-column, no external font/script requests, WCAG 2.2 AA contrast", "avoid": [ "Paraphrasing a statute without citing the section number", "Any banned phrase from DESIGN-STANDARD §9" ] }, "entity_seo": { "main_entities": [ "CureClock", "Texas Property Code Chapter 209", "FDCPA" ], "related_entities": [ "Community Associations Institute", "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac non-warrantable financing" ], "people": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "orgs": [ "Community Associations Institute", "Foundation for Community Association Research" ], "tools": [ "AppFolio", "Vantaca", "CINC Systems" ], "regulations": [ "Texas Property Code Ch. 209", "FDCPA", "SCRA" ], "problems": [ "Missed cure-notice deadline", "Invalid lien filing", "FDCPA misclassification" ], "solutions": [ "Cure Notice Pack", "Deadline Ledger", "Lien-Ready Packet" ], "processes": [ "Notice Sequence", "Compliance Review" ], "alternatives": [ "Contingency collection agency", "Assessment-collection law firm" ], "synonyms": [ "HOA delinquency notice compliance", "condo assessment collections compliance" ] }, "schema_strategy": [ { "type": "Service", "where": "Homepage/landing page", "required_fields": [ "name", "description", "areaServed" ], "caution": "No Organization/LocalBusiness schema until the entity_gate in ddd_coverage closes (operating entity not yet declared)" } ], "internal_linking": { "pillar_to_cluster": "Every pillar links to its 2-3 supporting pages", "cluster_to_pillar": "Every supporting page links back to its pillar", "cluster_to_cluster": "FDCPA explainer links to the lien-notice-sequence guide", "service_to_location": "Not applicable — no location pages at launch", "faq_to_commercial": "FAQ page links to the pricing section", "breadcrumbs": "Not used at launch — small page count does not need them yet", "anchor_text_rules": [ "Use the exact ubiquitous-language term as anchor text, never generic 'click here'" ] }, "technical_seo": { "crawlability": "Static single-file pages, fully crawlable", "indexability": "All pages indexable except any future internal tooling pages", "sitemaps": "Simple XML sitemap listing the landing page and published pillar guides", "robots": "Standard allow-all except internal tooling", "canonicals": "Self-canonical on every page", "pagination": "Not applicable at launch page count", "faceted_nav": "Not applicable", "duplicate_control": "One URL per topic; no near-duplicate state pages until each state's content is genuinely distinct", "redirects": "Not applicable at launch", "core_web_vitals": "Landing page ≤120KB, zero external requests, LCP ≤2.5s, INP ≤200ms, CLS ≤0.1", "mobile": "Single-column responsive layout", "accessibility": "WCAG 2.2 AA per DESIGN-STANDARD §6", "js_seo": "Minimal JS, no client-side-rendering dependency for core content", "rendering": "Static HTML, no server-side rendering framework needed at this scale", "gsc_setup": "Verify domain in Google Search Console once the entity_gate closes", "analytics_setup": "data-event attributes feed a lightweight funnel view (see ai-engine-spec.md)", "rank_tracking": "Track the 6 keyword_clusters above monthly" }, "eeat": { "author_bios": "Founder bio disclosing the Compliance Analyst role and Texas rule-matrix authorship", "expert_reviewers": "Retained Texas community-association attorney reviews all statute-explainer content before publication", "editorial_policy": "Every statutory claim must cite the specific section; no paraphrase-only claims", "fact_checking": "Cross-checked against primary statutory text at publication and on any legislative-update signal", "credentials": [ "Attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix (Texas Property Code Ch. 209)" ], "citations": "Direct links to primary statutory sources", "first_hand_proof": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] pilot-cohort deadline-compliance results, pending first Texas pilot files" ], "update_cadence": "Re-verified on any detected legislative-update signal, per delivery-playbook.md's Rule Matrix freeze policy", "monetization_disclosure": "Service pricing disclosed transparently on every relevant page", "ymyl_notes": "Treated as YMYL-adjacent (financial/legal compliance) — every claim must be citable and disclaimed" }, "ai_search": { "principles": [ "Answer the exact statutory question in the first sentence after the relevant heading", "Always cite the specific section number" ], "tactics": [ "Structured headers", "Direct statutory citations", "Dated content" ], "do_not": [ "Paraphrase a statute without citing it", "Use any banned phrase from DESIGN-STANDARD §9" ] }, "conversion": { "primary_cta": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "secondary_cta": "View the full operating blueprint dossier", "lead_magnets": [ "Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "Free 50-State HOA Notice Deadline Cheat Sheet" ], "trust_elements": [ "Direct statute citations", "Draft-only disclosure", "Compliance disclaimers" ], "per_page_paths": [ { "path": "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "page_type": "Landing page" }, { "path": "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "page_type": "Pillar guide" } ], "tracking": "domain.diagnostic_requested as the primary conversion event" }, "link_earning": { "digital_pr_ideas": [ "Anonymized aggregate pilot-cohort deadline-compliance data once available" ], "original_research": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] pending pilot-cohort completion" ], "directories": [ "CAI chapter directories" ], "expert_contributions": [ "Guest posts on community-association trade publications" ], "partnerships": [ "Community-association attorney referral partners" ], "avoid": [ "Paid link schemes", "Fabricated review/citation farms" ] }, "roadmap_90d": [ { "phase": "Days 1-30", "goal": "Publish the core Texas statute-explainer pillar and the free-scan landing page", "pages": [ "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "texas hoa cure notice requirements", "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan" ], "required_assets": [ "Founder-authored statute walkthrough", "Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan landing section" ], "internal_links": [ "Homepage -> pillar -> scan CTA" ], "difficulty": "Medium", "business_value": "High", "conversion_goal": "Scan requests", "why_first": "Establishes topical authority on the exact statute the MVP is built around" }, { "phase": "Days 31-60", "goal": "Publish the FDCPA explainer and the contingency-vs-flat-fee comparison page", "pages": [ "/fdcpa-hoa-assessment-collection", "/hoa-collections-vendor-comparison" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "fdcpa hoa assessment collection", "hoa assessment delinquency collection agency" ], "required_assets": [ "FDCPA explainer draft", "Comparison table of contingency vs. flat-fee vendors" ], "internal_links": [ "Pillar -> comparison page -> pricing" ], "difficulty": "Medium", "business_value": "Medium", "conversion_goal": "Pilot signups from comparison-stage searchers", "why_first": "Captures buyers already shopping for a vendor" }, { "phase": "Days 61-90", "goal": "Publish the lien-notice-sequence guide and the non-warrantable financing-risk post", "pages": [ "/hoa-lien-notice-sequence-texas", "/non-warrantable-condo-delinquency" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "hoa lien notice sequence texas", "non-warrantable condo delinquency rate" ], "required_assets": [ "Worked lien-timeline diagram description", "Board-level financing-risk framing" ], "internal_links": [ "Pillar -> lien guide -> Full Sequence pricing" ], "difficulty": "Medium", "business_value": "Medium", "conversion_goal": "Full Sequence tier inquiries", "why_first": "Widens buyer urgency beyond the collections desk" } ], "roadmap_12m": [ { "phase": "Month 4-6", "goal": "Expand content to Florida statute coverage as the second state's Rule Matrix goes live", "pages": [ "/florida-hoa-assessment-collection-notice" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "florida hoa delinquency notice", "florida condo assessment collection" ], "required_assets": [ "Attorney-reviewed Florida Rule Matrix summary" ], "internal_links": [ "Texas pillar -> Florida pillar (state-comparison internal link)" ], "difficulty": "Medium", "business_value": "High", "conversion_goal": "Florida pilot signups", "why_first": "Matches the second-state expansion gate in launch-plan.md" }, { "phase": "Month 7-12", "goal": "Build the attorney-referral-partner landing page and CAI-chapter-specific content", "pages": [ "/community-association-attorney-partners" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "hoa collections attorney partnership", "cai chapter hoa vendor" ], "required_assets": [ "Attorney partner one-pager (from gtm-kit.md)" ], "internal_links": [ "Homepage -> attorney partner page" ], "difficulty": "Low", "business_value": "Medium", "conversion_goal": "Referral partner conversations", "why_first": "Supports the referral-channel GTM motion once pilot volume is proven" } ], "priority_pages": [ { "rank": 1, "page_title": "Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan (free)", "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "page_type": "Landing page", "primary_keyword": "hoa delinquency roster deadline scan", "secondary_keywords": [ "free hoa deadline risk scan" ], "intent": "transactional", "funnel": "bottom", "business_value": "Primary lead-generation surface", "difficulty": "low", "conversion_potential": "high", "cta": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "schema": [ "Service" ], "internal_links": [ "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements" ], "required_proof": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "why_opportunity": "No competitor publishes this exact free-scan offer", "production_priority": "P0", "scope": "Landing page, already built as site/index.html" }, { "rank": 2, "page_title": "Texas HOA Cure Notice Requirements, Explained", "slug": "texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "page_type": "Pillar guide", "primary_keyword": "texas hoa cure notice requirements", "secondary_keywords": [ "texas property code 209.006", "hoa 45 day notice texas" ], "intent": "informational", "funnel": "top", "business_value": "Topical authority + trust-building", "difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "medium", "cta": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "schema": [ "Article" ], "internal_links": [ "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk" ], "required_proof": "Direct statutory citation (Prop. Code §209.006)", "why_opportunity": "Thin CAM-practitioner-voice coverage of this exact statute", "production_priority": "P1", "scope": "First 30-days content piece #1" } ], "competitor_gaps": { "typical_competitor_types": [ "Contingency collection agencies", "Assessment-collection law firms", "HOA/PM software" ], "common_weaknesses": [ "No maintained public statute-explainer content", "No transparent flat pricing", "No draft-only trust positioning" ], "how_to_beat_them": [ "Publish the exact statutory mechanics competitors only gesture at", "Show flat pricing transparently where competitors hide behind 'contact us'", "Lead with the free scan instead of a sales call" ] }, "metrics": { "weekly": [ "Scan requests", "Pillar-page organic sessions" ], "monthly": [ "Pilot signups from organic", "Keyword rank changes on the 6 tracked clusters" ], "quarterly": [ "Topical authority expansion (new states)" ], "annual": [ "Organic-sourced pilot-to-retainer conversion rate" ] }, "risks": [ { "risk": "YMYL content penalty if a statutory claim is inaccurate", "applies": true, "mitigation": "Attorney review before publication of any statute-explainer content" }, { "risk": "Thin content penalty from over-expanding state pages before real content exists", "applies": true, "mitigation": "Programmatic page generation explicitly not recommended (see seo.programmatic)" } ], "first_20_pages": [ "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "/texas-hoa-cure-notice-requirements", "/fdcpa-hoa-assessment-collection", "/hoa-lien-notice-sequence-texas", "/hoa-collections-vendor-comparison" ], "first_10_tech_fixes": [ "Verify the landing page stays under the 120KB budget as content is added", "Set up a basic XML sitemap once 3+ pages exist" ], "first_10_authority_actions": [ "Publish the Texas statute pillar with a retained-attorney review credit", "Submit to CAI chapter directories where permitted" ], "final_recommendation": "Launch with the landing page and the free-scan offer as the sole indexed surface; add the Texas statute pillar and FDCPA explainer within 30 days once attorney review is complete, and hold off on any additional state content until that state's Rule Matrix is live.", "disclaimers": [ "This SEO plan is not legal advice; every statute-explainer page requires attorney review before publication per compliance-checklist.md." ] }, "microsite": { "category": "Compliance production desk / HOA-condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance", "shortTitle": "CureClock — HOA Delinquency Notice Compliance", "audience": "CAM company principals and collections coordinators (Texas launch)", "problem": "A missed or malformed statutory notice can forfeit the association's right to recover collection costs, invalidate a lien, or trigger FDCPA exposure — and CAM companies track this by hand across dozens of files.", "offer": "A statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger for every newly-delinquent account, delivered in 24 hours, reviewed by a compliance analyst — $29-$39 per file, never hourly.", "faq": [ { "q": "Does CureClock contact my delinquent homeowners directly?", "a": "No. CureClock is draft-only. You send and sign every notice under your own letterhead — CureClock never contacts the homeowner, negotiates, or collects." }, { "q": "Do you file or record the lien?", "a": "No. CureClock assembles the Lien-Ready Packet; your retained attorney reviews and files it. CureClock never signs on behalf of the association." }, { "q": "What if a notice is wrong?", "a": "Every notice passes a deterministic rule-engine check, an AI self-check, and a human Compliance Analyst review against a state-specific Statute Checklist before delivery. If a file we've accepted still misses a statutory deadline, that file's fee is refunded and we review the root cause with you." }, { "q": "Which states do you cover?", "a": "Texas at launch (Prop. Code Ch. 209). Florida, California, and Colorado are gated expansion states — each requires its own attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix before any client there is onboarded." }, { "q": "Is this legal advice?", "a": "No. CureClock is a document-production vendor, not a law firm. Every deliverable carries a disclaimer and should be reviewed by your own counsel before you take legal action." } ], "process": [ { "title": "Upload your roster", "body": "Send your delinquency roster, governing documents, and collection policy through the secure intake form." }, { "title": "We draft and review", "body": "Our engine drafts the statute-cited Cure Notice Pack; a Compliance Analyst reviews it against the state Statute Checklist." }, { "title": "You send and sign", "body": "You receive the Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger — you send it under your own letterhead." }, { "title": "We track the clock", "body": "The Deadline Ledger tracks every downstream date and, if the account stays delinquent, assembles the Lien-Ready Packet for your attorney." } ], "northStarCta": { "label": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "href": "#diagnostic", "secondary_label": "View the full operating blueprint dossier", "secondary_href": "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk/blueprint/" }, "trust": { "standards": [ "Texas Property Code Ch. 209 attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix", "100% human Compliance Analyst review through the first 20 pilot files", "Draft-only — never the collector of record" ], "response_time": "24-48 hours, intake to delivery", "data_handling": "Encrypted intake/storage; minimal retention; access limited to the analysts actively working your file" }, "hook": "Never miss another 45-day cure deadline.", "sub_headline": "Upload your Texas delinquency roster. Get a statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger back in 24 hours — reviewed by a compliance analyst, ready for you to send under your own letterhead.", "dream_outcome": "Every delinquent account in your portfolio has a dated, cited, defensible notice sent on time — with zero deadlines tracked by memory or spreadsheet.", "specific_pains": [ "Tracking a 45-day cure deadline across 40 simultaneous files in a spreadsheet", "Losing the right to recover collection costs because a notice went out one day late", "Paying a contingency agency 25%+ of recovered dollars for a routine, non-disputed file", "Not knowing whether your notice actually satisfies Prop. Code §209.006" ], "cost_of_inaction": "A single missed cure-notice deadline can forfeit the association's right to recover collection costs on that account — and a malformed lien notice can be invalidated entirely if a homeowner challenges it.", "mechanism": { "name": "The Cure Notice Pack pipeline", "steps": [ { "title": "Intake & Normalization", "body": "Your roster is extracted and confidence-scored; low-confidence fields are confirmed by a compliance analyst before drafting." }, { "title": "Rule Matrix retrieval", "body": "A deterministic date-math engine computes every statutory deadline against the attorney-reviewed Texas Rule Matrix — never left to AI judgment." }, { "title": "Drafting & review", "body": "The notice is drafted with inline statutory citations, then reviewed against the Statute Checklist by a compliance analyst before delivery." } ] }, "offer_stack": [ { "item": "Cure Notice Pack", "note": "$29-$39 per file, per required notice event" }, { "item": "Deadline Ledger", "note": "Included with every Cure Notice Pack" }, { "item": "Full Notice-to-Lien-Ready Sequence", "note": "$149-$199 per file that proceeds through the complete statutory sequence" }, { "item": "Portfolio Deadline-Monitoring Retainer", "note": "$99-$349/mo, tiered by portfolio size" } ], "guarantee": "Zero-missed-deadline guarantee on the pilot cohort: if CureClock's Deadline Ledger causes a missed statutory deadline on an accepted file, that file's fee is refunded in full.", "urgency": "The first 5 Texas pilot cohort slots include 5 free files each; new pilot onboarding pauses at 20 clients until cycle-one metrics are reviewed.", "objections": [ { "q": "Isn't this just a chatbot writing a letter?", "a": "No — every clause is grounded in a versioned, attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix with inline statutory citations, and every date comes from a deterministic date-math engine, never an LLM guess." }, { "q": "Why not just use our property-management software's templates?", "a": "AppFolio/Vantaca/CINC give you a tool to operate yourself; they don't maintain a state rule matrix or provide a reviewed, delivered work product with an audit trail." }, { "q": "What happens to disputed or bankrupt accounts?", "a": "They're routed to the Exception Queue and your attorney the same business day — never processed through the automated pipeline." } ], "who_this_is_not_for": [ "Individual homeowners (you are never the subject of your own notice, and homeowners are never a CureClock client)", "Associations already fully outsourcing 100% of delinquency handling to a law firm on exclusive contingency", "CAM companies outside Texas at launch (Florida/California/Colorado are gated expansion states)" ], "proof_pillars": [ { "title": "Attorney-reviewed Rule Matrix", "body": "The Texas Property Code Ch. 209 rule set is attorney-reviewed before any live file drafts against it." }, { "title": "100% human review", "body": "Every file is reviewed by a compliance analyst against a state-specific Statute Checklist through at least the first 20 pilot files." }, { "title": "[PLACEHOLDER] Pilot results", "body": "Pilot-cohort deadline-compliance results will appear here once the first Texas pilot files ship — no fabricated results in the meantime." } ], "stakes_line": "A missed 45-day cure notice doesn't just delay collection — it can forfeit the association's right to recover collection costs entirely.", "deliverable": "Cure Notice Pack", "unit_of_work": "delinquent account, per required notice event", "lexicon": { "regulator": "the client's retained attorney", "regulator_full": "the CAM company's retained collections attorney of record", "statute": "Prop. Code §209.006", "statute_frame": "Texas Property Code Chapter 209 (Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act)", "persona": "CAM company collections coordinator", "persona_moment": "the moment a delinquency roster shows a newly-flagged 30-days-past-due account", "trigger_moment": "an owner crosses the association's delinquency threshold and the account is flagged for pre-collection notice", "enforcement_stakes": "loss of the right to recover collection costs, an invalid lien, or FDCPA exposure", "retention": "a CAM company that adopts CureClock for one association expands to its full portfolio within 90 days if the pilot performs", "cta_verb": "Scan my roster", "intake_checklist": [ "Delinquency roster export (owner, unit, balance, last-payment date)", "Association governing documents (bylaws/CC&Rs)", "Association's own collection policy" ], "regulator_faqs": [ { "q": "Does my attorney need to review every Cure Notice Pack?", "a": "Not the routine Cure Notice Pack itself, but every Lien-Ready Packet always goes to your retained attorney before filing — no exceptions, ever." } ], "trust_standards_specific": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, "proof_angle": { "id": "deadline-risk-scan", "headline": "See your at-risk files before you pay for anything", "lever": "Free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "outcome_verb": "flags", "outcome_frame": "which accounts are approaching or have already lapsed a statutory deadline", "proof_promise": "Upload your roster and see real, specific at-risk files in your own portfolio within 24 hours — not a generic demo." }, "indexable": true, "ubiquitousLanguage": { "audience": "CAM company principals and collections coordinators", "domain": "HOA/condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance", "deliverable": "Cure Notice Pack", "reviewer": "Compliance Analyst", "record": "Deadline Ledger", "unit_of_work": "delinquent account, per required notice event", "cta_primary": "Request my free Portfolio Deadline-Risk Scan", "cta_secondary": "View the full operating blueprint dossier", "regulator": "the client's retained attorney", "regulator_full": "the CAM company's retained collections attorney of record", "statute": "Prop. Code §209.006", "trigger_moment": "an owner crosses the association's delinquency threshold and the account is flagged for pre-collection notice", "event_intake_started": "domain.diagnostic_requested", "event_conversation_requested": "domain.diagnostic_requested" } }, "evidence": [ { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e1", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Identity", "claim_or_finding": "Working brand name declared: CureClock. Operating entity/EIN not yet declared by the owner.", "status": "pending", "evidence": "brand.md documents a web collision check only (no competing brand found); formal trademark clearance and operating-entity declaration are owner actions.", "verification_command": "Owner submits entity name/EIN and completes a formal trademark clearance search.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Not yet resolved — flagged in ddd_coverage.failingGates as entity_gate.", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e2", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Regulatory", "claim_or_finding": "Texas Property Code §209.006 45-day cure notice and two-step lien-notice sequence, verified against current Texas State Law Library / statutes.capitol.texas.gov text as of 2026-07-13.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "Fresh web search against FindLaw, Justia, and the official Texas statutes site confirmed the mechanics described in the source blueprint remain current.", "verification_command": "Re-check statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PR/htm/PR.209.htm before each new Texas cohort onboarding.", "fix_owner": "system", "remediation": "Resolved — no deviation from the blueprint required.", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e3", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Regulatory", "claim_or_finding": "FDCPA applicability to third-party HOA-assessment collection remains an actively contested, unresolved question outside the 7th Circuit, consistent with the blueprint's framing.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "Fresh web search of Homeowners Protection Bureau, ACA International, and Silberman Law Firm sources, plus a 2025 Seventh Circuit FDCPA ruling reference, confirms the same unresolved-applicability framing as of 2026-07-13.", "verification_command": "Monitor CAI advocacy updates and periodic counsel review.", "fix_owner": "system", "remediation": "Resolved — CureClock's conservative full-compliance-everywhere default is unchanged.", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e4", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Market", "claim_or_finding": "373,000 community associations and ~$103.3B in annual assessments remain consistent with current 2026 industry statistics pages.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "Fresh web search of DoorLoop, iPropertyManagement, FixMyHOA, and CAI's own Foundation for Community Association Research page shows figures in the same range as the blueprint's cited source.", "verification_command": "Re-check foundation.caionline.org/publications/factbook before major market-sizing claims are refreshed.", "fix_owner": "system", "remediation": "Resolved — no deviation required.", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e5", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Naming", "claim_or_finding": "'CureClock' web-collision-checked with no competing company/brand found in this space.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "Web search of 'CureClock brand name company' returned only an unrelated Etsy craft shop and generic clock-brand directories — no operating company or registered brand in HOA/compliance services.", "verification_command": "Formal USPTO/state trademark search before scaling past the pilot cohort.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Partially resolved — obvious-collision check passed; formal clearance remains an owner action (see compliance-checklist.md proof-gap disclosure).", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e6", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Duplication", "claim_or_finding": "No duplicate business exists in the repository for HOA/condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "docs/ainbis-launch-network/SYNC_STATUS.md and data/ainbis/sync_watch_state.json both independently confirm a clean anti-duplication result against hoa-resale-estoppel-production-engine and ca-hoa-annual-reserve-disclosure-completeness-pack-engine.", "verification_command": "grep -ril for the slug/candidate name across docs/ runs/ sources/ data/ before each build.", "fix_owner": "system", "remediation": "Resolved.", "severity": "info" }, { "id": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk-e7", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "area": "Pricing", "claim_or_finding": "Named competitors' exact per-file fees or contingency percentages remain unverified — competitors publish qualitative pricing language, not rate cards.", "status": "unverified", "evidence": "Confirmed consistent with the blueprint's own Claim Table labeling this Unverified/Low confidence.", "verification_command": "Confirm actual competitor pricing through direct pilot-client conversations.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Not yet resolved — logged as a proof gap in compliance-checklist.md and gtm-kit.md.", "severity": "info" } ], "seo_pages": { "id": "seo-hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "business_slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "route": "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "title": "CureClock — HOA/condo assessment-delinquency notice compliance desk", "description": "CureClock for Texas CAM companies: a statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger for every delinquent account, delivered in 24 hours. Flat per-file pricing, never hourly, never the collector of record.", "canonical": "/hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "og_title": "CureClock — never miss another HOA cure-notice deadline", "og_description": "Upload your Texas delinquency roster. Get a statute-perfect Cure Notice Pack and Deadline Ledger back in 24 hours, reviewed by a compliance analyst.", "schema_type": "Service", "schema_status": "pending — no Organization/LocalBusiness schema until entity_gate closes per ddd_coverage.failingGates", "sitemap_include": true, "noindex": false }, "vertical_style": { "accent": "#C7862B", "signature": "Dashed deadline-ledger motif", "layout": "Document-of-record ledger, bordered cards, stat strip up top", "anti": "No generic blue/purple SaaS gradient; no contingency-agency aggressive tone; no stock legal photography" }, "canva": { "slug": "hoa-condo-assessment-delinquency-notice-collections-desk", "territory": "Ledger & ink", "family": { "id": "ledger-ink", "name": "Ledger & Ink", "motion": "minimal, reduced-motion safe" }, "tokens": { "brand": "#0F3B33", "brand-fg": "#F4F1E8", "surface": "#FBF9F3", "ink": "#1B2420", "muted": "#5B6660", "accent": "#C7862B" }, "type": { "display": "system-ui, Georgia, serif fallback", "body": "system-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, sans-serif", "fonts_url": "none" }, "scale": { "h1": "2.25rem", "h2": "1.5rem", "h3": "1.125rem", "body": "1rem", "small": "0.875rem", "tracking_display": "-0.01em", "tracking_body": "normal", "weight_display": 700, "weight_body": 400 }, "spacing": { "card_padding": "1.5rem", "card_radius": "4px", "card_shadow": "0 1px 2px rgba(15,59,51,0.08)", "section_gap": "4rem", "hero_gap": "2rem" }, "layout": { "hero": "Two-column: copy left, side-panel stat card right", "card": "Bordered, low-radius, document-tab motif", "cta": "Solid brand-color button with gold accent focus ring", "archetype": "Document-of-record ledger", "card_silhouette": "Rectangular with a dashed top edge evoking a filed form", "button_geometry": "Rounded-rectangle, 4px radius, no pill shapes" }, "background": { "hero_gradient": "none — flat --surface background, no gradients", "cta_gradient": "none — flat --brand background", "section_wash": "Alternating --surface and --surface-raised bands" }, "motif": "Dashed deadline-ledger line" }, "capabilities": { "marketing": true, "portal": false, "ops": true, "chatbot": false, "payments": false }, "generated_at": "2026-07-13T14:10:00Z", "checksum": "sha256:generated-locally" }