{ "version": "1.8.0", "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "title": "DeedBack Clear — Compliant, Escrow-Protected Timeshare Exit & Deed-Back Case Management", "vertical": "Consumer / regulated contract services — compliant timeshare exit & deed-back case management", "seed": { "s": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "t": "DeedBack Clear — Compliant, Escrow-Protected Timeshare Exit & Deed-Back Case Management", "v": "Consumer / regulated contract services — compliant timeshare exit & deed-back case management", "r": "Medium-high", "m": "M" }, "product": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "project_name": "DeedBack Clear", "project_type": "outcome-priced, per-case US timeshare exit case management desk", "vertical": "Consumer / regulated contract services — compliant timeshare exit & deed-back case management", "audience": "U.S. timeshare owners (deeded-week or points-based), 45+, owned 5+ years, current or near-current on maintenance fees, seeking a legitimate exit — and adult children managing an aging parent's contract", "geography": "United States; launch beachhead Florida (Ch. 721), Texas (TREC escrow surety bond), and Virginia (Va. Code §55.1-2244) — states with clear timeshare-reseller registration/bonding frameworks", "scale_expectation": "8-logo / 40-case pilot cap in the first 60–90 days; per-case and Case Continuity Desk retainers thereafter", "core_workflows": [ "Intake and qualification of one timeshare contract file (contract, maintenance-fee statement, contract and fee documents, developer policy documents, developer/HOA contact, confirmed confirmed intake date)", "AI extraction, contract document time-sorting, and evidence matching of each eligibility finding line to its supporting contract document and developer policy document", "Licensed-specialist review of eligible vs. ineligible exit path language, interest-note computation for points-based contracts, and completeness QA", "Case recontract with a intake→case-timeline tracker and a delivery-proof checklist; the timeshare owner approves and sends" ], "discovery": { "one_line_purpose": "Turn a the launch states timeshare owner's timeshare contract file — contract, fee statement, contract documents, and developer policy documents — into a owner-ready Exit Path Report that clears the the applicable state timeshare statute case clock.", "primary_users": [ "Owner / managing broker / VP of operations of an 80–800 case US residential caseload", "Contract administrator or case specialist who assembles exit path reports under the clock", "Compliance manager updating SOPs after the the developer certified-exit policy update points-based expansion" ], "jobs_to_be_done": [ "When a developer the exit requests with damages, produce a complete exit path report and refund path before confirmed termination so I do not loses legitimate eligibility findings.", "When developer policy documents are slow, structure a lawful good-faith path and evidence map without missing the clock.", "When a developer disputes charges, give me a case that shows contract document ↔ eligibility finding line ↔ developer document linkage so small-claims risk drops." ], "value_prop": "A done-for-you, per-the exit request Exit Path Report that removes the missing-documentation and missed-deadline reasons timeshare contracts get lost — assembled inside the case window and reviewed by a licensed specialist.", "competitors": [ "Boutique timeshare-cancellation attorneys the owner hires hourly", "Independent timeshare-exit consultants with manual, non-scaled operations", "Frontdesk AI (inbound 'where is my refund?' assistant, not a exit path report)", "AppFolio / Buildium / Yardi (case portal fee statement tools that do not DFY-assemble evidence-linked US cases under a clock SLA)" ], "differentiation": "Outcome-priced per completed case, AI-compressed contract document→developer document→fee statement assembly, a case-timeline tracker, and a licensed-specialist gate on eligible vs. ineligible exit path language — distinct from the other-state sibling desk by statute (the state timeshare statute/the state timeshare statute vs. Civ. Code §1950.5), clock (14 vs. 21 days), and the the developer certified-exit policy update points-based expansion.", "positioning_statement": "For the launch states timeshare owners who lose legitimate eligibility findings to a strict case-cycle loss clock, DeedBack Clear is a done-for-you case desk that delivers a complete, evidence-linked Exit Path Report before confirmed termination — unlike case portal templates you operate yourself or counsel you pay by the hour." }, "assumptions": [ { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-a1", "statement": "Timeshare owners will pay for a done-for-you Completeness outcome over continuing to book developer policy document totals unverified, once shown a concrete Exit Path Diagnostic finding.", "confidence": "medium", "impact_if_wrong": "severe", "revisit_trigger": "First 10 pilot Exit Path Diagnostic sales conversations — reject the wedge if willingness-to-pay signal is absent." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-a2", "statement": "A case cycle can hit the 5-business-day (10 at pilot) delivery SLA from Timeshare owner-supplied contract & fee statement set and developer policy documents alone, without Timeshare owner-side software integration.", "confidence": "medium", "impact_if_wrong": "high", "revisit_trigger": "First 3-6 pilot Exit Path Diagnostics." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-a3", "statement": "timeshare owners tolerate AI-assisted developer policy document parsing and eligibility finding gap drafting when an licensed specialist's approval and signature are explicit on every Exit Path Report.", "confidence": "medium", "impact_if_wrong": "high", "revisit_trigger": "First developer/court-comment dispute resolved off a DeedBack Clear Case." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-a4", "statement": "Scan-to-desk conversion reaches at least 25-40% among qualified, warm-led timeshare owners.", "confidence": "low", "impact_if_wrong": "severe", "revisit_trigger": "Day-90 pilot-cohort conversion measurement (explicit kill/pivot gate at 25%)." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-a5", "statement": "Logical, row-level developer isolation (not single-developer infrastructure per client) is acceptable to the pilot cohort.", "confidence": "medium", "impact_if_wrong": "high", "revisit_trigger": "Any prospect (e.g. a multi-Timeshare owner network) with a hard single-developer compliance clause." } ], "unknowns": [ { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-u1", "question": "Which specific licensed specialist signs off on the first cohort's Exit Path Reports?", "blocks": "Any commercial engagement; the analyst signature invariant.", "resolution_path": "Named analyst + engagement letter on file before the first paid scan." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-u2", "question": "What is the true scan-to-desk conversion rate among warm, qualified leads?", "blocks": "Pricing hypothesis; scaling decision.", "resolution_path": "10-Timeshare owner pilot cohort with explicit pricing conversation, measured against the Day-90 checkpoint (25% kill gate, 40% target)." }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-u3", "question": "How much does per-developer-format parser coverage actually reduce review minutes by day 90?", "blocks": "Unit-economics model; throughput assumptions.", "resolution_path": "Instrument analyst minutes per cycle from pilot 1; compare to the 3.8h-launch to 1.9h-day-90 target." } ], "expert_panel": [ { "role": "Product Strategy", "key_concern": "Is the Exit Path Diagnostic narrow enough to sell in weeks without a custom integration?", "recommendation": "Launch scoped to a 3-month developer policy document lookback against a single contract & fee statement set; expand scope only after the pilot converts.", "dissent": "May understate the recurring-revenue story to early prospects expecting an always-on dashboard." }, { "role": "Software Architecture", "key_concern": "Are we defaulting to a client-facing portal the pilot doesn't need yet?", "recommendation": "Single deployable modular monolith; upload-link/email intake only at launch, no client portal.", "dissent": "May read as under-built to a referral partner expecting a branded dashboard." }, { "role": "Frontend / UX", "key_concern": "Is the evidence chain (developer policy document line to contract & fee statement policy to analyst approval) visible in every analyst-facing view?", "recommendation": "Every evidence map line renders its developer policy document citation, matched requirement, and analyst decision in one glance.", "dissent": "Adds density a non-the launch states timeshare exit analyst might call cluttered." }, { "role": "Backend / Data", "key_concern": "Is the audit trail append-only and reconstructable for a developer eligibility finding dispute or diligence request years later?", "recommendation": "Event-sourced audit log for every case-cycle state transition; hash-chained artifact snapshots.", "dissent": "More write-path complexity than plain CRUD; requires schema discipline as developer formats evolve." }, { "role": "AI / ML", "key_concern": "Are eligibility finding classifications grounded in the contract & fee statement requirement and never a free-form guess?", "recommendation": "Retrieval-first classification citing the specific maintenance-fee statement line; deterministic money math in code, never the model; mandatory analyst gate before any client- or developer-facing claim.", "dissent": "Slower per-cycle than a fully automated tool; may frustrate a prospect expecting instant results." }, { "role": "Security", "key_concern": "Is one timeshare owner's financial and policy data isolated from every other timeshare owner's?", "recommendation": "Row-level auth, per-developer retrieval indices, log-scrubbing of financial figures.", "dissent": "None recorded this run." } ], "strategy": { "business_model": "Flat per-case fee ($2,400–$3,600; typical $3,000) plus rush riders and a Case Continuity Desk retainer (a monthly referral-partner retainer). Never hourly, never a percentage of the timeshare contract.", "revenue_streams": [ "Exit Path Diagnostic (free wedge / primary CTA)", "Exit Path Report ($2,400–$3,600 per completed case; typical $3,000)", "Rush rider (<72h to case): +$49–$2,400", "Case Continuity Desk (a monthly referral-partner retainer capped cases + queue SLA)" ], "moat": [ "Per-building-type requirement/attribute library and per-case portal developer-policy knowledge that compounds with every case", "Wear-and-tear vs. damage language library that survives developer disputes", "Deterministic case-timeline and interest-note calculators keyed to US statute", "Gold-standard case + dispute-outcome dataset as a proprietary QA library" ], "gtm": [ "Founder-led educational content + anonymized case-timeline loss teardowns", "NARspecialist US / local REIA summer-crush webinars and broker networks", "Answer-engine-visible statute guides + Exit Path Diagnostic lead magnet" ], "pricing_hypothesis": "Scan free; Exit Path Report $3,000 beachhead ($2,400–$3,600 range), rush +$49–$2,400, Continuity Desk a monthly referral-partner retainer; anchored to the paid fees ($2,000–$4,500+) at risk of loss.", "kill_criteria": [ "No signed pilot logo in 4 weeks of qualified US outreach", "Licensed-specialist minutes per case do not fall with template coverage", "Scan→paid conversion under 5% after 100 scans", "Repeated UPL complaints despite documentation-developer boundaries" ] }, "security": { "stride": [ { "threat": "Spoofing", "scenario": "Attacker impersonates an licensed specialist to approve a fabricated eligibility finding gap or sign a Exit Path Report.", "mitigation": "SSO with MFA; analyst signatures bound to a cryptographic session claim, not a form field." }, { "threat": "Tampering", "scenario": "Historical developer policy document or Case entries edited after the fact to hide a bad match.", "mitigation": "Append-only audit log; hash-chained artifact snapshots; diff view on every analyst surface." }, { "threat": "Repudiation", "scenario": "Analyst denies approving a eligibility finding gap or signing a Case that later proves wrong.", "mitigation": "Signed confirmations with server-side timestamp + analyst identity; export bundle includes signature manifest." }, { "threat": "Information Disclosure", "scenario": "Cross-developer leak of one timeshare owner's contract/fee-statement data through shared indices, logs, or prompts.", "mitigation": "Developer-scoped row-level auth; PII/financial-data scrubbing in logs; retrieval indices partitioned per Timeshare owner." }, { "threat": "Denial of Service", "scenario": "A runaway extraction job or bulk export exhausts shared workers during a month-end delivery crunch.", "mitigation": "Per-developer concurrency + budget caps; circuit breaker on model calls; degrade-gracefully queue." }, { "threat": "Elevation of Privilege", "scenario": "A standard operator acquires analyst-approval or developer-follow-up-send capability via a workflow shortcut.", "mitigation": "Roles stored in a separate table; capability checks server-side; no client-only role checks." } ], "privacy_posture": "Data-minimization by default; per-client isolation; data-processing terms on file; deletion-schedule runbook published.", "compliance_targets": [ "Confidential project-data handling program", "SOC 2 Type I (year 2 roadmap)", "Engineering-practice boundary + collection-Timeshare owner-statute review per state before scaling", "Developer-portal terms-of-service log for any automated developer policy document pull" ], "data_classifications": [ "Timeshare owner contract-and-fee statement set (sensitive business data)", "Developer contract-file developer policy documents (sensitive, third-party-sourced)", "Trade eligibility finding scopes / furnish decision data (sensitive, HR-adjacent)", "Contact/PII (standard)" ] }, "devops": { "ci_cd": "PR -> typecheck + unit + snapshot tests -> preview deploy -> main auto-deploys to a single production region; migrations gated on review.", "environments": [ "local", "preview (per-PR)", "staging (shared)", "production (single region + multi-AZ)" ], "observability": [ "Structured logs with developer + request IDs", "RED metrics per workflow", "Error tracking with source maps", "Model-call spans with cost + latency", "Weekly SLO review, with a month-end delivery-crunch capacity review" ], "testing_pyramid": [ "Unit tests on matching-derivation and source-contract document check validation modules", "Component tests on analyst exception-queue surfaces", "Contract tests on developer-developer policy document-schema parsers", "End-to-end smoke test on the intake -> match -> analyst-signoff -> delivery path" ], "accessibility_tests": [ "axe-core in CI on analyst-facing surfaces", "Keyboard-only walkthrough per workflow", "Prefers-reduced-motion honored" ], "performance_budget": "p95 workflow latency published per module; developer document-extraction cold-path under 30s or shown as a background job." }, "accessibility_i18n_ethics": { "wcag_target": "AA", "locales": [ "en-US" ], "rtl_support": false, "ethical_risks": [ "A eligibility finding gap or at-risk-dollar claim recontractd without analyst approval", "Developer-follow-up language read as a demand or collection threat rather than an developer document follow-up note", "An error in a developer dispute record attributed to AI rather than owned by the analyst" ], "ethical_guardrails": [ "Human licensed specialist approval required before any eligibility finding or developer document follow-up note ships", "Deterministic output filter blocks demand/collection-style language in every drafted developer document follow-up note", "AI-usage disclosure available in the engagement letter where relevant" ] }, "governance": { "ownership": [ { "area": "Product + roadmap", "owner": "Executive Sponsor" }, { "area": "Architecture + platform", "owner": "Engineering Lead" }, { "area": "Completeness + analyst workflow", "owner": "Named licensed specialist" }, { "area": "Compliance + privacy", "owner": "Compliance Lead" }, { "area": "Design system", "owner": "Design Lead" }, { "area": "SEO + content", "owner": "Content Lead" } ], "docs_required": [ "ADR log (checked in)", "Owner-action Case", "Evidence register", "STRIDE threat model", "Runbook: incident, restore, breach notification", "Analyst playbook + signature policy" ], "naming_conventions": [ "kebab-case slugs for blueprints and routes", "camelCase for TypeScript identifiers", "SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE for environment variables", "Verb-first action names (e.g., generate-Completeness-case)" ], "change_control": "ADR-per-major-decision; migrations require review; production deploys gated on green CI + owner-action Case check." }, "risk_register": [ { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-r1", "risk": "A developer-facing claim proves incorrect", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "severe", "mitigation": "Every eligibility finding claim linked to a cited maintenance-fee statement version + analyst signoff", "contingency": "dispute-support workflow; client-notification template; audit-log export within 24 hours", "owner": "legal" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-r2", "risk": "AI hallucination in a delivered eligibility finding gap line or developer document follow-up note", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Retrieval-first pipeline + structured output validation + analyst gate", "contingency": "Analyst-triggered rollback + regeneration; incident postmortem published to the Timeshare owner", "owner": "engineering" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-r3", "risk": "Cross-developer Timeshare owner financial data leak", "likelihood": "low", "impact": "severe", "mitigation": "Row-level auth + per-developer retrieval indices + log-scrubbing", "contingency": "Breach-notification runbook; forced credential rotation; scoped developer kill switch", "owner": "engineering" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-r4", "risk": "Pilot Timeshare owner churns before converting to a paid desk", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Weekly working-session cadence during pilot; documented value moments; owner-action Case", "contingency": "Structured exit interview; write learnings into ICP + pricing hypothesis", "owner": "owner" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-r5", "risk": "a case portal developer ships free, good-enough Completeness with a developer document follow-up flow", "likelihood": "medium-high", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Portal-agnostic positioning; redelivery/follow-up as the human moat software won't replicate", "contingency": "Reposition as \"we operate whatever contract & fee statement tool exists\"; lean harder into the Diligence Source-evidence check line", "owner": "owner" } ], "roadmap": [ { "phase": "Phase 0 — Discovery + pilot LOI", "weeks": "Weeks 1-2", "outcomes": [ "3-5 pilot Timeshare owner LOIs", "Evidence case from each pilot Timeshare owner", "Written ICP + pricing hypothesis" ], "exit_criteria": [ "≥3 LOIs signed", "Owner-action Case populated per Timeshare owner", "Analyst identity confirmed" ], "kill_criteria": [ "<2 LOIs after 2 weeks", "No willingness-to-pay signal above pilot price" ] }, { "phase": "Phase 1 — Thin vertical slice", "weeks": "Weeks 3-4", "outcomes": [ "Intake -> match -> analyst signoff -> delivery working end-to-end for one contract & fee statement format", "Audit trail wired", "Instrumentation live" ], "exit_criteria": [ "1 real Exit Path Diagnostic delivered + analyst-signed", "p95 workflow latency published" ], "kill_criteria": [ "Analyst signoff cycle >10 business days", "Evidence bundle cannot be reconstructed on demand" ] }, { "phase": "Phase 2 — Pilot cohort", "weeks": "Weeks 3-8", "outcomes": [ "10 pilot timeshare owners scanned", "First standard-price desk conversion", "SOC 2 Type I scoping" ], "exit_criteria": [ "≥1 standard-price contract", "Post-scan debrief trust signal captured", "Postmortem cadence in place" ], "kill_criteria": [ "No standard-price conversion by Day 90", "Scan-to-desk conversion below 25%" ] }, { "phase": "Phase 3 — Recurring-desk scale-up", "weeks": "Weeks 9-13 (Day 90 checkpoint)", "outcomes": [ "Public commercial launch of the microsite as 'ready'", "Rush rider and Diligence Source-evidence check line active", "Owner-action Case closed for launch" ], "exit_criteria": [ "COGS/rework/cycle-time measured against target", "Expansion beyond the pilot cohort gated on targets, not calendar time" ], "kill_criteria": [ "Rework rate persistently above 3%", "Analyst minutes per client not falling with volume" ] } ], "metrics": { "north_star": "Signed Exit Path Reports delivered per week, per client, with zero client-caught material errors", "leading": [ "Pilot Timeshare owner LOIs signed", "Scan-request-to-delivered-scan cycle time", "Analyst signoff cycle time", "Evidence coverage per evidence map line", "Owner-action Case closure rate" ], "lagging": [ "Paid standard-price desk contracts signed", "Scan-to-desk conversion (target ≥40%, pilot gate 25%)", "Client-caught material error rate (target <0.5%)", "Logo retention (target ≥85% annualized)" ], "guardrails": [ "Model spend per developer per week", "PII/financial data in logs (target: 0)", "Cross-developer access attempts (target: 0)", "p95 workflow latency ceiling" ] }, "executive_review": { "consensus": "Ship a thin, evidence-linked, analyst-gated vertical slice for DeedBack Clear, wedged on the Exit Path Diagnostic. Prefer a boring, single-region modular monolith. Do not launch commercially until owner-action facts close and at least one analyst-signed Exit Path Report has shipped.", "dissent": "Executive Sponsor and Privacy/Compliance disagree on launch tempo — Privacy recommends waiting for the full state-by-state collection-Timeshare owner-statute review before enabling the rush rider anywhere.", "go_no_go": "conditional-go", "top_3_risks": [ "A developer-facing claim proves incorrect", "AI hallucination in a delivered eligibility finding gap line or developer document follow-up note", "Cross-developer Timeshare owner financial data leak" ], "first_10_steps": [ "Confirm the named licensed specialist + engagement letter on file", "Populate owner-action Case with entity, jurisdiction, contact inbox, privacy inbox", "Open pilot-cohort intake (cap 10) with explicit pricing conversation", "Write ICP + kill/pivot criteria in the plan file", "Stand up the evidence-linked intake -> match -> analyst signoff loop", "Wire append-only audit log + hash-chained snapshots", "Add row-level auth + developer-scoped retrieval indices", "Instrument scan-request, case-delivery, and analyst-signoff events", "Publish the microsite with FAQPage schema only and noindex until owner-facts close", "Schedule the Day-90 kill/pivot review with executive sponsor" ] } }, "project_site": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "app_name": "DeedBack Clear case desk", "archetype": "US case desk", "archetype_label": "US case desk", "reader_role": "the launch states timeshare owner or case specialist", "one_sentence_app": "A case desk that routes each timeshare owner into the specific deed-back or certified-exit path their developer accepts, keeps a licensed specialist on every determination, and holds the fee in independent escrow until the exit is confirmed.", "homepage_sequence": [ "scene", "workflow", "instrument", "offer", "proof", "qualification", "objections" ], "hero": { "frame_label": "U.S. timeshare exit · deed-back / certified-exit case management (FL/TX/VA launch)", "eyebrow": "Timeshare owner / a legitimate exit path is confirmed and the case is running", "interface_title": "DeedBack Clear case desk", "primary_panel_title": "Case #DBC-000117 · deed-back path · developer review open", "primary_panel_body": "Open case: extract the contract, match the developer's accepted exit path, draft specialist-signed correspondence, run the follow-up cadence, and hold the milestone fee in escrow until written termination is confirmed.", "side_panel_title": "Before escrow releases", "side_panel_items": [ "Every eligibility finding line matched to a contract document and a developer policy document or on the follow-up list", "Interest note computed for the points-based building and the bank disclosed", "Delivery-proof checklist ready so the confirmed-termination step is logged, not assumed" ], "status_metric": "QA", "status_label": "licensed-specialist gate active" }, "language": { "problem_heading": "The timeshare owner's moment", "mechanism_heading": "Inside the DeedBack Clear case desk", "proof_heading": "Why this survives a developer dispute and the case clock", "offer_heading": "What leaves the room", "objection_heading": "The hard questions", "qualification_heading": "Who should not use this", "cta_close": "Start a free Exit Path Diagnostic — reviewed by a licensed specialist" }, "modules": [ { "name": "Section intake", "job": "Turns one timeshare contract file, the developer policy documents, and held certificates into a named case with an intake checklist and qualification (trade, due date, private commercial).", "artifact": "case intake record" }, { "name": "Evidence match & completeness", "job": "Extracts required items, OCRs and links the developer policy documents, and drafts a page-cited evidence map and developer document follow-up list — every row tied to a source contract document/developer document.", "artifact": "evidence map + developer document follow-up list" }, { "name": "Specialist QA & delivery", "job": "Runs the deterministic rules gate, gets a case-specialist QA signature and the case operator's confirmation, then delivers the case with a rejection-risk score.", "artifact": "delivered First-Pass Exit Path Report" } ], "checkpoints": [ { "label": "required-item match", "pass": "matched with a cited source contract document/developer document", "fail": "routed to the specialist exception queue" }, { "label": "required signatureificate", "pass": "attached or on the developer document follow-up list with a draft developer email", "fail": "hard-fail: missing required signature blocks delivery" }, { "label": "dispute-support fields", "pass": "all fields complete with the spec-section reference", "fail": "hard-fail: blank dispute-support field blocks delivery" } ], "signature_scene": "You run timeshare exit cases for an 80–800 case US caseload. It's the week after a summer wave of exits, a owner is on PTO, the last carpet developer document landed on week 6 of the case, and three units are on Day 11 of the case clock." }, "ddd": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "project_name": "DeedBack Clear", "business_understanding": { "summary": "DeedBack Clear is a done-for-you desk that manufactures a owner-ready Exit Path Report for one the launch states the exit request — eligibility finding lines linked to contract document and developer document evidence, an fee-proration note where required, a case-timeline tracker, and a delivery-proof checklist — reviewed by a licensed specialist.", "customer_profile": "the launch states residential timeshare owners (across FL, TX, and VA) running exit timeshare exit case managements", "customer_pain": "the launch states's the applicable state timeshare statute imposes a strict case-cycle dual deadline: return the balance and deliver a written exit path report, or loses the right to retain any portion — even for real, photographed, invoiced damage. Late developer policy documents, scattered contract documents, and summer PTO break the process at volume.", "paid_outcome": "A first-pass, owner-ready Exit Path Report for one the exit request, recontractd to the specialist by week 2 with zero missing statutory elements.", "value_creation": "Removes the missing-documentation and missed-deadline reasons timeshare contracts get lost by combining contract document→developer document→fee statement reconciliation, a deterministic case-timeline clock, and a licensed-specialist gate on eligible vs. ineligible exit path language.", "why_ai_native": "Frontier models compress multi-hour evidence assembly across high-volume document into minutes of OCR and evidence match, improving as handwriting OCR and multi-document reasoning improve; humans remain at eligibility finding entitlement confirmation and edge-case developer/court packaging.", "operational_risks": [ "Entitlement disputes masquerading as completeness work.", "Handwriting-OCR failure on illegible paper tickets.", "Rate or quantity hallucination if confirmation gates are weak.", "Scope creep into legal claims or contingency recovery.", "developer/court preference subjectivity beyond documentation completeness." ], "assumptions": [ "Beachhead subs will pay $3,000 per case to avoid a revision round and weeks of slipped cash.", "First-pass completeness acceptance can reach >=70% by case 20 with hardened SOPs.", "Specialist minutes per case can fall from ~58 to ~25-30 by day 90.", "Free Exit Path Diagnostic converts to paid cases at 15-25%.", "The desk stays out of UPL and PE scope with confirmation and hard boundaries." ], "validation_questions": [ "What is the true first-pass completeness acceptance rate across the first 20 cases?", "What is the scan-to-paid conversion after 100 qualified scans?", "Can human minutes stay under ~40 without quality collapse on paper tickets?", "Which ticket formats are AI-tractable versus escalation-bound?", "Does case-to-Continuity conversion reach 25-35%?" ] }, "domain_discovery": { "actors": [ { "actor": "Timeshare owner", "role": "Owns the timeshare owner's timeshare-exit engagement; supplies records and authorizes developer-follow-up sends", "goals": [ "Recover missing/rejected timeshare exit cases", "Avoid losing staff hours to developer policy document matching", "Have a defensible Case for timeshare owners, CPA, and acquirers" ], "decisions": [ "Whether to engage DeedBack Clear", "Which records to supply", "Whether to authorize developer document follow-up notes and the rush rider" ], "pain_points": [ "No time for line-item developer policy document verification", "Doesn't know which of 40+ developer formats are shortchanging the Timeshare owner" ] }, { "actor": "Licensed specialist", "role": "Reviews AI-matched developer policy documents and drafted gaps; signs off before delivery or developer send", "goals": [ "Recontract only evidence-backed, source-page-complete Cases", "Protect Timeshare owner and developer relationships" ], "decisions": [ "Approve, escalate, or reject a eligibility finding gap", "Sign or withhold the Exit Path Report" ], "pain_points": [ "Volume spikes during month-end delivery windows", "Ambiguous fuzzy matches requiring judgment" ] }, { "actor": "Timeshare owner", "role": "Receives furnish decision developer policy documents computed from verified data; may dispute a furnish decision", "goals": [ "Get paid correctly and on time" ], "decisions": [ "Whether to escalate a furnish decision dispute" ], "pain_points": [ "No developer policy document-backed answer when a furnish decision looks wrong" ] }, { "actor": "Developer contract-file Department (external)", "role": "Receives developer document follow-up notes about missing/rejected timeshare exit cases", "goals": [ "Resolve developer document follow-up notes without escalation" ], "decisions": [ "Confirm, correct, or dispute an developer document follow-up note" ], "pain_points": [ "High developer document follow-up note volume across many timeshare owners and formats" ] } ], "glossary": [ { "term": "Exit Path Diagnostic", "definition": "The one-time, $0 risk triage of a recent timeshare contract file's developer policy documents against the contract & fee statement set.", "used_by": "Timeshare owner", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "example": "Scan for Timeshare owner #AG-2291 across 34 timeshare contract files", "notes": "Never called 'audit', 'check', or 'review'." }, { "term": "case cycle", "definition": "One calendar month's worth of developer policy document collection, matching, and case delivery for one client.", "used_by": "Licensed specialist", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "example": "The July case cycle for Timeshare owner #AG-2291", "notes": "The unit of recurring work." }, { "term": "Exit Path Report", "definition": "The signed source-contract document check artifact: every developer policy document line matched to a policy, balanced to the penny.", "used_by": "Licensed specialist, Timeshare owner", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "example": "July Exit Path Report, multiple developers, traces to a documented fee amount in stated timeshare exit cases", "notes": "Never called 'report' or 'developer policy document'." }, { "term": "evidence map", "definition": "The list of missing, rejected, late, or redelivery lines with dollar value and evidence.", "used_by": "Licensed specialist, Timeshare owner", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "example": "3 rejected lines, 1 missing renewal, est. $2,140", "notes": "Never called 'exceptions report'." } ], "decisions": [ { "decision": "Is this developer policy document line a real eligibility finding gap or a normal contract & fee statement quirk (e.g. as-earned lag)?", "who": "AI drafts, Analyst confirms", "inputs": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "rule": "Classification thresholds per transaction type; building-type quirk map consulted before flagging", "output": "eligibility finding classification with evidence citation", "risk": "False eligibility finding gap sent to a developer" }, { "decision": "Is the Exit Path Report ready to sign?", "who": "Deterministic code gates, Analyst signs", "inputs": "All developer policy document lines matched or exception-coded, Case source-contract document check to developer policy document totals", "rule": "Source-evidence-complete rule: Case must tie to developer policy document totals before recontract", "output": "Signed Exit Path Report", "risk": "Signed case with an unresolved source-contract document check gap" } ], "events": [ { "event": "The exit requestFileExtracted", "meaning": "A developer policy document is extracted and source-checked, ready for matching", "trigger": "Extraction Agent completes parsing + source-contract document check check", "downstream": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "event": "MatrixDrafted", "meaning": "A flagged eligibility finding gap is analyst-confirmed and evidenced", "trigger": "Licensed specialist approves the classification", "downstream": "Developer developer document follow-up note drafted; Developer document follow-up list line finalized" } ] }, "subdomains": [ { "name": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "type": "core", "description": "The exit requestFile normalization, statute-element matching, expected-contract-file computation, and eligibility finding classification.", "reason": "This is the paid outcome — the completed Case and Developer document follow-up list are what the Timeshare owner is buying.", "business_value": "Direct revenue driver; every tier maps to a delivered Exit Path Report.", "recommendation": "Build in-house, deterministic-rules-first.", "ai_involvement": "Extraction, matching, eligibility finding classification, drafting", "human_involvement": "Analyst approval, Case signature", "risks": [ "Missed cycle-delivery SLA", "Incomplete evidence causing a client-caught error" ], "validation_questions": [ "What is the real analyst review time per cycle at volume?" ] }, { "name": "Delivery", "type": "core", "description": "Developer-follow-up drafting/sending, aging/tracking, Exit Path Report assembly, Delivery Case.", "reason": "Differentiates DeedBack Clear from a generic timeshare contract-ops service — this is the follow-up-and-collect layer.", "business_value": "Drives conversion (free scan -> paid desk) and the rush rider.", "recommendation": "Build in-house; maintain a per-element contact/quirk map from day one.", "ai_involvement": "Drafts developer document follow-up notes and Delivery reports", "human_involvement": "Analyst approves every outbound developer document follow-up note; escalation judgment", "risks": [ "Stalled recoveries with no tracked follow-up" ], "validation_questions": [ "How often do developers respond within the 60-day aging window?" ] }, { "name": "Evidence & Compliance", "type": "supporting", "description": "Audit trail, engagement-letter authorization, licensing-boundary enforcement.", "reason": "Necessary complement to Completeness but not itself the differentiated value proposition.", "business_value": "Protects the licensing boundary and supports diligence/source-contract document check sales.", "recommendation": "Build thin; keep tightly scoped to documentation, never advice.", "ai_involvement": "Assembles audit exports", "human_involvement": "Compliance lead maintains state-by-state tracker", "risks": [ "Scope creep into unlicensed Timeshare owner or collection activity" ], "validation_questions": [ "Which states need counsel review before the rush rider is offered?" ] }, { "name": "Referral & Outreach", "type": "generic", "description": "CRM, outbound sequencing, and content publishing.", "reason": "Not differentiating; off-the-shelf tools suffice at this stage.", "business_value": "Supports pipeline but not the core value proposition.", "recommendation": "Buy (lightweight CRM), do not build.", "ai_involvement": "Content drafting assistance", "human_involvement": "Founder-led outreach and content", "risks": [ "Low differentiation risk if under-invested" ], "validation_questions": [ "Which channel actually converts at the assumed rate?" ] } ], "core_domain_analysis": { "primary_core": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "secondary_cores": [ "Delivery" ], "supporting_may_become_core": [ "Evidence & Compliance" ], "generic_do_not_distract": [ "Referral & Outreach", "CRM/pipeline tracking" ], "rationale": "The paid outcome is a signed Exit Path Report, so Exit-Path Matching & Evidence is the primary core. Delivery is a secondary core because developer document follow-up and tracked Delivery is the human-plus-AI moat that differentiates DeedBack Clear from software the Timeshare owner has to operate itself. Evidence & Compliance could become core if the Diligence Source-evidence check line grows into a larger revenue stream, but starts as supporting. Referral & Outreach uses off-the-shelf tooling deliberately to keep engineering focus on the the exit request-file completeness engine." }, "bounded_contexts": [ { "name": "Diagnostic Context", "purpose": "Diagnostic Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] }, { "name": "Case Context", "purpose": "Case Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] }, { "name": "Exit Path Library Context", "purpose": "Exit Path Library Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] }, { "name": "Escrow Context", "purpose": "Escrow Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] }, { "name": "Correspondence Context", "purpose": "Correspondence Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] }, { "name": "Compliance Context", "purpose": "Compliance Context — a bounded_context in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "subdomain": "Intake", "type": "supporting", "owned_language": [ "submission", "document", "page-class" ], "owns": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "does_not_own": [ "evidence rules", "delivery packaging" ], "primary_actors": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "entities": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "aggregates": [ "Submission" ], "domain_services": [ "Intake service" ], "application_services": [ "submission record", "document normalization", "page classification" ], "commands": [ "NormalizeDocuments", "SubmitThe exit requestFile" ], "domain_events": [ "DocumentsNormalized", "SubmissionReceived" ], "policies": [ "Start SLA on complete intake" ], "specifications": [ "IntakeCompletenessSpec" ], "invariants": [ "A case cannot advance while an open hard fail exists in this context" ], "ai_agents": [ "Intake classifier" ], "human_roles": [ "Customer", "Intake bot" ], "data_owned": [ "Submission", "Document", "Page" ], "inputs": [ "Upstream context output" ], "outputs": [ "Downstream context input" ], "external_integrations": [ "Drive/Dropbox intake", "case portals (customer-submitted, not auto-pushed)" ], "risks": [ "Illegible handwriting mis-extracted", "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" ], "interfaces": [ "-> next context via domain event" ], "value_objects": [] } ], "context_map": [ { "upstream": "Intake & Normalization", "downstream": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Domain event (The exit requestFileExtracted) consumed by matching engine", "translation_notes": "Canonical developer policy document schema is the shared contract; no direct database coupling.", "pattern": "Customer-Supplier", "contract_type": "domain event", "data_exchanged": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "events_exchanged": [ "Domain event (The exit requestFileExtracted) consumed by matching engine" ], "ownership_boundary": "Downstream never writes to upstream's tables", "acl_notes": "Anti-corruption translation not needed — shared canonical schema", "business_reason": "Keeps each context's invariants enforceable independently", "failure_risks": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "upstream": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "downstream": "Delivery", "relationship": "Customer-Supplier", "integration_pattern": "Domain event (MatrixDrafted) triggers developer document follow-up note drafting", "translation_notes": "Only analyst-approved gaps cross the boundary.", "pattern": "Customer-Supplier", "contract_type": "domain event", "data_exchanged": "Canonical schema payload only", "events_exchanged": [ "Domain event (MatrixDrafted) triggers developer document follow-up note drafting" ], "ownership_boundary": "Downstream never writes to upstream's tables", "acl_notes": "Anti-corruption translation not needed — shared canonical schema", "business_reason": "Keeps each context's invariants enforceable independently", "failure_risks": "Downstream stalls if upstream event delivery fails" }, { "upstream": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "downstream": "Quality Assurance", "relationship": "Conformist", "integration_pattern": "RecontractPack command with synchronous validation", "translation_notes": "QA enforces the source-page-complete invariant; Exit-Path Matching & Evidence conforms to QA's signature contract.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "domain event", "data_exchanged": "Canonical schema payload only", "events_exchanged": [ "RecontractPack command with synchronous validation" ], "ownership_boundary": "Downstream never writes to upstream's tables", "acl_notes": "Anti-corruption translation not needed — shared canonical schema", "business_reason": "Keeps each context's invariants enforceable independently", "failure_risks": "Downstream stalls if upstream event delivery fails" }, { "upstream": "Delivery", "downstream": "Quality Assurance", "relationship": "Conformist", "integration_pattern": "PackReadyForSignoff event", "translation_notes": "Case cannot deliver without QA signoff.", "pattern": "Conformist", "contract_type": "domain event", "data_exchanged": "Canonical schema payload only", "events_exchanged": [ "PackReadyForSignoff event" ], "ownership_boundary": "Downstream never writes to upstream's tables", "acl_notes": "Anti-corruption translation not needed — shared canonical schema", "business_reason": "Keeps each context's invariants enforceable independently", "failure_risks": "Downstream stalls if upstream event delivery fails" } ], "external_integrations": [ { "system": "Property management system (case portal) export", "direction": "inbound", "pattern": "File-based export, no live API at launch", "risk": "Schema drift per contract/fee statement version", "owner_context": "Delivery", "data_in": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "data_out": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "trigger": "case cycle start", "internal_model": "Canonical developer policy document/case schema", "acl_strategy": "Per-section parser translates external format to canonical schema", "failure_strategy": "Retry then manual fallback", "audit_need": "Every external call logged with timestamp and payload hash" }, { "system": "developer policy document portals", "direction": "inbound", "pattern": "Timeshare owner-authorized credentialed pull or client-forwarded file", "risk": "Portal ToS friction; credential expiry", "owner_context": "Intake & Normalization", "data_in": "developer policy document content", "data_out": "N/A", "trigger": "case cycle start", "internal_model": "Canonical developer policy document/case schema", "acl_strategy": "Per-section parser translates external format to canonical schema", "failure_strategy": "Retry then manual fallback", "audit_need": "Every external call logged with timestamp and payload hash" }, { "system": "Buildium / contract & fee statement posting-file import", "direction": "outbound", "pattern": "Generated posting file, Timeshare owner-side import", "risk": "Format mismatch per timeshare contract-ops software version", "owner_context": "Delivery", "data_in": "N/A", "data_out": "Posting file or developer document follow-up note email", "trigger": "Analyst approval", "internal_model": "Canonical developer policy document/case schema", "acl_strategy": "Per-section parser translates external format to canonical schema", "failure_strategy": "Retry then manual fallback", "audit_need": "Every external call logged with timestamp and payload hash" }, { "system": "Developer developer document mailbox", "direction": "outbound", "pattern": "Timeshare owner-authorized email send", "risk": "FollowUpItem misread as a demand", "owner_context": "Delivery", "data_in": "N/A", "data_out": "Posting file or developer document follow-up note email", "trigger": "Analyst approval", "internal_model": "Canonical developer policy document/case schema", "acl_strategy": "Per-section parser translates external format to canonical schema", "failure_strategy": "Retry then manual fallback", "audit_need": "Every external call logged with timestamp and payload hash" } ], "event_storm": [ { "seq": 1, "command": "SubmitThe exit requestFile", "event": "SubmissionReceived", "actor": "Customer", "context": "Intake context", "aggregate": "Submission", "policy": "Start SLA clock on complete intake", "downstream": "Normalize documents", "risk": "Incomplete intake starts a false clock" }, { "seq": 2, "command": "NormalizeDocuments", "event": "DocumentsNormalized", "actor": "Intake bot", "context": "Intake context", "aggregate": "Document", "policy": "Classify every page", "downstream": "Extract evidence", "risk": "Illegible handwriting misclassified" }, { "seq": 3, "command": "ExtractEvidence", "event": "EvidenceExtracted", "actor": "AI workbench", "context": "Evidence context", "aggregate": "EvidenceMatrix", "policy": "Never infer a rate or quantity", "downstream": "Evidence match exhibits", "risk": "Hallucinated line without a source contract document/developer document" }, { "seq": 4, "command": "Evidence matchExhibits", "event": "MatrixEvidence matched", "actor": "AI workbench", "context": "Evidence context", "aggregate": "EvidenceMatrix", "policy": "Flag any line with no supporting exhibit as a gap", "downstream": "Run completeness rules", "risk": "Ambiguous exhibit link accepted silently" }, { "seq": 5, "command": "RunCompletenessRules", "event": "CompletenessScored", "actor": "Rules engine", "context": "Completeness context", "aggregate": "CompletenessScore", "policy": "Block on any open hard fail", "downstream": "Specialist QA", "risk": "Soft flag treated as hard fail or vice versa" }, { "seq": 6, "command": "ConfirmAndDeliver", "event": "PackDelivered", "actor": "Customer + Specialist", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "aggregate": "Exit casePack", "policy": "No delivery without QA sign-off and confirmation", "downstream": "Rejection learning on developer dispute", "risk": "Delivery before confirmation captured" } ], "critical_path": [ "developer policy document.received -> developer policy document.normalized -> pack_cycle.evidence_matched -> eligibility finding.analyst_approved -> Exit casePack.signed -> case.delivered" ], "exception_flows": [ "A developer policy document line below the matching-confidence threshold -> routed to analyst exception queue, blocks pack_cycle.evidence_matched until resolved", "A eligibility finding classification needs-analyst-judgment -> held for analyst, never auto-approved" ], "escalation_flows": [ "A eligibility finding gap over $250 -> second analyst pass before Developer document follow-up list approval", "A developer disputes an developer document follow-up note beyond a routine response -> referred to the timeshare owner's own counsel" ], "retry_flows": [ "Developer developer document follow-up note unacknowledged after 60 days -> automated reminder, then analyst-judged escalation at 90 days" ], "manual_override_flows": [ "Founder/senior analyst can force-hold any Exit Path Report pre-recontract regardless of automated source-contract document check pass, if a data-integrity issue is suspected" ], "commands": [ { "name": "RequestDiagnostic", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "ExtractContract", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "MatchExitPath", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "SignExitPathReport", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "OpenCase", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "EscrowDeposit", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "DraftCorrespondence", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "SignCorrespondence", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "SendCorrespondence", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "RecordDeveloperResponse", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "ConfirmTermination", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "ReleaseEscrow", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "DeliverCase", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" }, { "name": "ReferOut", "issued_by": "Customer", "preconditions": [ "the exit request-file id or unnumbered flag", "at least one developer policy document" ], "aggregate": "Submission", "success_event": "SubmissionReceived", "failure_event": "IntakeRejected", "authorization": "Customer", "validation": "Files readable; scope stated", "audit": "Intake log" } ], "policies": [ { "name": "Start SLA on complete intake", "trigger": "SubmissionReceived", "condition": "Intake checklist complete or deferral recorded", "action": "Start the delivery SLA clock", "context": "Intake context", "ai_involvement": "Checklist bot verifies completeness", "human_approval": false }, { "name": "Never invent a rate", "trigger": "EvidenceExtracted", "condition": "A rate or quantity is not written on a source contract document/developer document", "action": "Mark the line a gap and cite the missing rate-sheet page", "context": "Evidence context", "ai_involvement": "Extraction prompt forbids inference", "human_approval": true }, { "name": "Block on hard fail", "trigger": "CompletenessScored", "condition": "Any hard fail is open", "action": "Prevent the case from advancing until cleared or deferred by the customer", "context": "Completeness context", "ai_involvement": "None — deterministic rules", "human_approval": true }, { "name": "Code every rejection", "trigger": "DeveloperDisputeReceived", "condition": "developer/court returns a comment", "action": "Tag root cause (our miss / developer/court preference / case operator change) and update playbooks", "context": "Evidence context", "ai_involvement": "Taxonomy classifier suggests a tag", "human_approval": true } ], "aggregates": [ { "name": "Diagnostic", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "Diagnostic — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" }, { "name": "Case", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "Case — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" }, { "name": "DeveloperExitPolicy", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "DeveloperExitPolicy — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" }, { "name": "EscrowLedger", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "EscrowLedger — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" }, { "name": "CorrespondenceThread", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "CorrespondenceThread — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" }, { "name": "ComplianceRecord", "root": "Exit casePack", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "purpose": "ComplianceRecord — a aggregate in the DeedBack Clear timeshare-exit domain.", "entities": [ "Exit casePack" ], "value_objects": [ "CompletenessScore", "ConfirmationRecord" ], "invariants": [ "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail or missing confirmation" ], "commands": [ "ConfirmAndDeliver", "RequestDelivery" ], "events": [ "PackDelivered", "DeveloperDisputeReceived" ], "repository": "Exit casePackRepository", "transaction_boundary": "One Exit casePack per transaction" } ], "invariants": [ { "invariant": "Cannot reach Delivered with an open hard fail", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "aggregate": "Exit casePack", "why": "A case that ships with a missing signature or unlinked contract document defeats the completeness promise.", "enforcement": "Delivery command checks zero open hard fails." }, { "invariant": "Confirmation captured before delivery", "context": "Review & Fulfillment context", "aggregate": "ConfirmationRecord", "why": "The case operator, not DeedBack Clear, owns rates, quantities, and eligibility finding entitlement.", "enforcement": "ConfirmAndDeliver requires ConfirmationCaptured." }, { "invariant": "Every claim line has a coverage status", "context": "Evidence context", "aggregate": "EvidenceMatrix", "why": "An unclassified line hides a gap from the analyst.", "enforcement": "Matrix validation rejects null coverage." }, { "invariant": "No invented rate reaches the pricing worksheet", "context": "Evidence context", "aggregate": "EvidenceMatrix", "why": "Presenting an inferred rate as contract fact is a hallucination and a compliance risk.", "enforcement": "Rates cite a rate-sheet page or are marked deferred." } ], "ai_agents": [ { "name": "Extraction Agent", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "responsibility": "Extract and normalize structured fields from developer contract-file developer policy documents (PDF, portal CSV, scanned paper) into the canonical schema.", "inputs": [ "Uploaded/forwarded developer policy documents" ], "outputs": [ "Structured line items with per-field confidence score" ], "tools": [ "OCR", "per-developer-format parser library" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Guessing a requirement id fragment not present in the source text" ], "memory_scope": "Single developer policy document extraction run", "retrieval_sources": [ "Per-section parser fixture library" ], "validations": [ "Confidence score attached to every field" ], "confidence_scoring": "0-100 per field, threshold 85", "escalation_triggers": [ "Any required field below 85% confidence" ], "human_approval": "Analyst confirms during exception review", "failure_modes": [ "Misread scanned/paper developer policy document", "Wrong developer-format classification" ], "audit_logs": [ "Every extraction run logged with document hash and confidence scores" ], "metrics": [ "Extraction accuracy vs. analyst-corrected value" ], "versioning": "Prompt versioned independently of the underlying model" }, { "name": "Matching Agent", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "responsibility": "Match normalized developer policy document lines to contract & fee statement policies (exact -> fuzzy -> analyst-adjudicated) and compute expected contract-file from the schedule.", "inputs": [ "Normalized developer policy document lines", "contract & fee statement contract-and-fee statement set", "maintenance-fee statements" ], "outputs": [ "Match candidates with confidence score", "Expected-contract-file computation" ], "tools": [ "Fuzzy entity matcher", "maintenance-fee statement lookup" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Auto-accepting a match below the confidence threshold" ], "memory_scope": "Single case cycle", "retrieval_sources": [ "Timeshare owner's contract & fee statement contract-and-fee statement set (developer-scoped)" ], "validations": [ "Every match below threshold routed to analyst with reasoning" ], "confidence_scoring": "0-100 per match, auto-accept ≥95, analyst queue below", "escalation_triggers": [ "No candidate match found", "Ambiguous multi-candidate match" ], "human_approval": "Analyst adjudicates all sub-threshold matches", "failure_modes": [ "Wrong fuzzy match on a common project owner name", "Stale contract & fee statement requirement AppFolio" ], "audit_logs": [ "Every match decision logged with confidence and reasoning" ], "metrics": [ "Auto-match rate", "Match-reversal rate on analyst audit" ], "versioning": "Prompt versioned independently of the underlying model" }, { "name": "Eligibility finding Drafter Agent", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "responsibility": "Classify each line's eligibility finding gap type and draft a plain-language explanation citing the source developer policy document and policy.", "inputs": [ "Matched/unmatched developer policy document lines", "contract & fee statement requirement", "Building-type quirk notes", "Prior payment history" ], "outputs": [ "eligibility finding classification", "Draft explanation with citations" ], "tools": [ "Building-type quirk knowledge base lookup" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Stating a eligibility finding gap is confirmed before analyst approval", "Estimating a dollar gap the schedule doesn't cover" ], "memory_scope": "Single case cycle", "retrieval_sources": [ "Building-type quirk knowledge base" ], "validations": [ "Output must cite a source developer policy document line and contract & fee statement requirement reference" ], "confidence_scoring": "Qualitative (missing / rejected / late / redelivery / rate-mismatch / unearned / needs-analyst-judgment)", "escalation_triggers": [ "Schedule doesn't cover the case" ], "human_approval": "Analyst approves every classification before it appears in the Developer document follow-up list", "failure_modes": [ "Misclassifying a legitimate redelivery as a short-pay" ], "audit_logs": [ "Every classification logged with citation and confidence" ], "metrics": [ "eligibility finding gap-classification accuracy vs. analyst-corrected value" ], "versioning": "Prompt versioned independently of the underlying model" }, { "name": "Developer document Follow-up Drafter Agent", "context": "Delivery", "responsibility": "Draft a professional, developer document follow-up note-toned (never demand-toned) email to a developer's contract-file department for an approved eligibility finding gap.", "inputs": [ "Approved eligibility finding gap", "Timeshare owner identity", "contract & fee statement requirement reference" ], "outputs": [ "Drafted developer document follow-up note email" ], "tools": [ "Demand-language deterministic filter" ], "forbidden_actions": [ "Using demand, collection, or legal-threat language", "Sending without analyst approval" ], "memory_scope": "Single eligibility finding gap developer document follow-up note", "retrieval_sources": [ "Building-type quirk knowledge base", "Developer contact map" ], "validations": [ "Draft passes the collection-language filter before reaching the analyst" ], "confidence_scoring": "N/A (deterministic filter gate, not a confidence score)", "escalation_triggers": [ "Filter rejects a draft twice in a row for the same eligibility finding gap" ], "human_approval": "Analyst approves every draft before send", "failure_modes": [ "Draft reads as aggressive despite passing the filter" ], "audit_logs": [ "Every draft + approval + send logged" ], "metrics": [ "Developer response rate", "Analyst edit rate on drafts" ], "versioning": "Prompt versioned independently of the underlying model" } ], "prompt_chain_map": [ "Intake -> Extraction Agent (extract + score) -> Matching Agent (match + compute expected) -> Eligibility finding Drafter Agent (classify + cite) -> OutputValidator -> Analyst (approve or escalate)", "Approved eligibility finding gap -> Developer document Follow-up Drafter Agent (draft) -> collection-language filter -> Analyst (approve or edit) -> send" ], "rag_map": [ "Per-Timeshare owner contract & fee statement contract-and-fee statement set (developer-scoped) -> retrieval router -> client-scoped hits -> Matching Agent", "Versioned per-developer-format parser fixture + quirk knowledge base -> shared retrieval -> Extraction Agent and Eligibility finding Drafter Agent (cited)" ], "ai_evaluation": [ "Golden dataset of past analyst-accepted matches and eligibility finding classifications, per developer", "Regression requirements on auto-match rate + eligibility finding gap-citation coverage", "Every prompt recontract requires a passing evaluator run against the fixture library" ], "hallucination_controls": [ "Retrieval-first (no free-form eligibility finding gap generation without a cited developer policy document line and requirement reference)", "Structured-output validator enforces citation-per-claim", "Confidence-scored escalation on extraction and matching", "Analyst gate on every eligibility finding gap and every outbound developer document follow-up note", "Deterministic filter blocks any demand/collection-style or coverage-determination language before it reaches the analyst" ], "human_in_the_loop_plan": [ "Analyst signoff on every Exit Path Report before delivery", "Analyst approval on every eligibility finding gap before it appears in a Developer document follow-up list or goes to a developer", "Senior-analyst co-sign on dispute-supports", "Owner approval on public-recontract readiness" ], "ai_audit_plan": [ "Every AgentRun logged with prompt version, retrieval hit ids, cost, latency, validator verdict", "13-month rolling retention on run logs", "Financial/PII data scrubbed from log payloads" ], "prompt_versioning": "Prompt versions immutable once published; rolled out via feature flag; every rollout paired with an evaluator run against the fixture library.", "human_roles": [ { "role": "Timeshare owner", "responsibilities": [ "Supply contract & fee statement set and developer policy documents", "Sign developer-communication authorization", "Approve trade eligibility finding scope" ], "contexts": [ "Intake & Normalization" ], "decisions_owned": [ "Whether to engage", "Which records to supply", "Whether to authorize the rush rider" ], "ai_support": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "approval_authority": "Authorizes the engagement and developer-communication authorization", "escalation_authority": "None (escalates to DeedBack Clear, not from it)", "quality_metrics": [ "Intake completeness" ], "workload_risks": [ "Month-end time scarcity" ] }, { "role": "Licensed specialist", "responsibilities": [ "Review AI-drafted matches and gaps", "Verify evidence sufficiency", "Sign off before delivery or developer send" ], "contexts": [ "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "Quality Assurance" ], "decisions_owned": [ "Approve, escalate, or reject a eligibility finding gap or match" ], "ai_support": "Extraction, matching, eligibility finding gap-classification, and developer document follow-up note-drafting agents", "approval_authority": "Sole authority to sign a Exit Path Report or approve a developer document follow-up note", "escalation_authority": "Escalates coverage/claims questions to the timeshare owner's own licensed staff; disputes beyond routine developer document follow-up note to the timeshare owner's counsel", "quality_metrics": [ "Client-caught material error rate", "Review cycle time" ], "workload_risks": [ "Volume spike during month-end delivery window" ] }, { "role": "Senior Analyst", "responsibilities": [ "Second-pass sampling on auto-matched lines", "Co-sign dispute-supports", "Second review on high-value developer document follow-up lists" ], "contexts": [ "Quality Assurance" ], "decisions_owned": [ "dispute-support approval" ], "ai_support": "None (human-only by design)", "approval_authority": "dispute-support co-signature authority", "escalation_authority": "Escalates to founder/owner", "quality_metrics": [ "dispute-support rate" ], "workload_risks": [ "Contractor-bench availability at scale" ] } ], "human_review_checkpoints": [ "AI draft -> Analyst approval", "Public recontract -> owner acceptance", "dispute-support -> senior-analyst co-sign", "Prompt rollout -> ops + evaluator" ], "escalation_matrix": [ "AI -> Analyst -> Senior Analyst -> Owner -> Timeshare owner's own counsel", "Coverage/claims dispute -> Analyst -> Timeshare owner's own licensed staff" ], "manual_override_rules": [ "Any manual override captured as an explicit override event with actor + reason", "No override may bypass the analyst-signoff or developer-authorization invariant" ], "separation_of_duties": [ "Extraction/Matching/Drafter Agents cannot sign; Analyst cannot draft on behalf of AI without an override event; Senior Analyst cannot silently retract" ], "quality_control_workflow": [ "Weekly analyst calibration meeting", "Monthly evaluator regression report", "Quarterly building-type quirk library re-verification review with owner + compliance" ], "data_objects": [ { "name": "The exit requestFile", "meaning": "One developer's developer policy document for one period", "owner_context": "Intake & Normalization", "writers": [ "Extraction Agent", "Timeshare owner" ], "readers": [ "Licensed specialist", "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence" ], "source_of_truth": "Intake & Normalization context", "retention": "7 years (mirrors standard financial-record retention practice)", "privacy": "Sensitive business/financial data, client-isolated", "audit": "Every field change logged" }, { "name": "Case", "meaning": "One case cycle's signed source-contract document check record", "owner_context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "writers": [ "Matching Agent", "Licensed specialist" ], "readers": [ "Timeshare owner", "Quality Assurance" ], "source_of_truth": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence context", "retention": "7 years", "privacy": "Sensitive", "audit": "Full version history retained" }, { "name": "EvidenceMatrix", "meaning": "One cycle's list of classified, evidenced gaps", "owner_context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "writers": [ "Eligibility finding Drafter Agent", "Licensed specialist" ], "readers": [ "Timeshare owner", "Delivery" ], "source_of_truth": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence context", "retention": "7 years", "privacy": "Sensitive", "audit": "Analyst approval logged per line" } ], "read_models": [ "OperatorDashboard read model (per developer): open cycles, in-review, delivered this week", "AnalystQueue read model: developer policy documents/gaps awaiting review with confidence + escalation reason", "CompliancePack read model: open owner actions + recontract-decision", "AnalyticsRollup read model: metric definitions rolled up daily" ], "reporting_models": [ "Outcome report per client: cases delivered, cycle time, client-caught error status, cleared sections", "Ops report: AI cost per cycle, escalation rate, analyst load" ], "data_duplication_notes": [ "Analyst identity is stored in Onboarding, referenced by Quality Assurance — QA does not own it", "OwnerActionPack duplicates minimal facts into read models for Exit-Path Matching & Evidence consumption" ], "data_retention": [ "Exit Path Reports + evidence matrices + signoffs: 7 years (standard financial-record retention)", "AgentRun logs: 13 months rolling", "Users + sessions: life of account + 2 years" ], "data_quality_risks": [ "Silent schema drift from a a developer changing its developer policy document layout", "Stale maintenance-fee statement version AppFolio after a rate change (mitigated by quarterly re-verification)", "Missing dispute-support cross-links after a legacy client-history import" ], "use_cases": [ { "name": "Run a Exit Path Diagnostic", "actor": "Timeshare owner", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "goal": "Get a matched-percentage and estimated-dollar-value finding within 10 business days", "preconditions": [ "contract & fee statement set and 3 months of developer policy documents supplied" ], "main_flow": [ "Intake checklist completed", "The exit requestFiles normalized and source-checked", "Matching engine runs", "Analyst approves gaps", "Scan report delivered" ], "alternative_flows": [ "No material finding -> report says so explicitly, no fee retained beyond the flat scan price" ], "business_rules": [ "No eligibility finding gap ships without analyst approval" ], "ai_role": "Extraction, matching, classification, drafting", "human_role": "Analyst approves and signs", "commands": [ "ReceiveThe exit requestFile", "NormalizeThe exit requestFile", "RunMatching", "ApproveEligibility finding" ], "events": [ "developer policy document.normalized", "pack_cycle.evidence_matched", "eligibility finding.analyst_approved" ], "aggregates": [ "The exit requestFileAggregate", "CaseFileAggregate", "EvidenceMatrixAggregate" ], "success": "Scan report delivered within SLA with analyst signature", "failure_handling": "Missing inputs trigger an automated nag; cycle does not start until complete", "audit": "Full audit trail from developer policy document receipt to report delivery" }, { "name": "Deliver a monthly Completeness Desk case", "actor": "Licensed specialist", "context": "Delivery", "goal": "Ship a signed Exit Path Report by the 5th business day", "preconditions": [ "Client on an active Completeness Desk tier", "Prior cycle's developer document follow-up notes tracked" ], "main_flow": [ "The exit requestFiles collected and normalized", "Matching completed", "missing elements approved", "Developer developer document follow-up notes drafted and sent", "Case signed", "Case delivered" ], "alternative_flows": [ "High-value Developer document follow-up list (>$250) routed to second analyst before finalization" ], "business_rules": [ "Statute-element completeness required before signature" ], "ai_role": "Extraction, matching, classification, developer document follow-up note drafting", "human_role": "Analyst signs; second analyst on high-value developer document follow-up lists", "commands": [ "RunMatching", "ApproveEligibility finding", "SendFollowUpItem", "RecontractPack" ], "events": [ "Exit casePack.signed", "followup_reminder.sent", "case.delivered" ], "aggregates": [ "Exit casePackAggregate", "FollowUpItemAggregate" ], "success": "Case delivered on time with a signed case", "failure_handling": "Missed SLA triggers the error-SLA acknowledgment process", "audit": "Full cycle audit trail retained" } ], "architecture": { "style": "Modular monolith with edge functions for bursty developer document-extraction workloads", "why": "One audit boundary, low ops burden for a founder-operated business, easy per-context ownership as the team grows past founder-only.", "rejected_alternatives": [ "Microservices per bounded context (premature at this scale)", "No-code workflow tool (can't enforce the source-page-complete deterministic gate reliably)" ], "backend_modules": [ "intake-normalization", "exit case-matching", "review-delivery", "quality-assurance" ], "frontend_modules": [ "analyst-console (internal only at launch)", "marketing microsite (public)" ], "api_boundaries": [ "Internal analyst console API (authenticated)", "No public API at launch — intake is upload-link/email only" ], "database_strategy": "Single Postgres instance, developer_id row-level security on every table", "event_bus": "In-process event dispatch at launch; durable queue (e.g. a managed message queue) once cycle volume requires async fan-out", "queue": "Background job queue for developer policy document extraction and matching (bursty, month-end-weighted load)", "workflow_engine": "None at launch — explicit state machine per aggregate in code", "ai_orchestration": "Scripted pipeline calling a single frontier-model provider, prompts + fixtures versioned in the repo", "rag_layer": "Per-Timeshare owner book-of-business retrieval + shared per-developer-format parser/quirk knowledge base", "file_storage": "Encrypted object storage, per-client prefix isolation", "authn_authz": "SSO with MFA for analysts; row-level developer auth for Timeshare owner-facing surfaces (year-1 client portal)", "admin_dashboard": "Internal only at launch (founder + analyst)", "client_portal": "None at launch (email/upload-link delivery); read-only case-status portal planned year 1", "operator_dashboard": "AnalystQueue read model surfaced in the internal console", "observability": "Structured logs + RED metrics + model-call cost/latency spans", "audit_logging": "Append-only, hash-chained per case cycle", "deployment": "Single production region, multi-AZ; preview environment per PR" }, "module_structure": { "tree": "src/{intake-normalization,exit case-matching,review-delivery,quality-assurance}/{domain,application,infra}", "modules": [ { "name": "intake-normalization", "purpose": "The exit requestFile receipt, extraction, and source-contract document check.", "owned_domain": [ "The exit requestFile" ], "application_services": [ "ReceiveThe exit requestFile", "NormalizeThe exit requestFile" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Mailbox listener", "Object storage adapter", "Extraction-model client" ], "public_interfaces": [ "developer policy document.normalized event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot call exit case-matching internals directly — event only" ] }, { "name": "exit case-matching", "purpose": "Matching, eligibility finding classification, Case source-contract document check.", "owned_domain": [ "Section", "EvidenceMatrix", "Case" ], "application_services": [ "RunMatching", "ApproveEligibility finding", "RecontractPack" ], "infra_adapters": [ "spec-export parser", "maintenance-fee statement store" ], "public_interfaces": [ "eligibility finding.analyst_approved event", "Exit casePack.signed event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot call review-delivery internals directly — event only" ] }, { "name": "review-delivery", "purpose": "Developer-follow-up drafting/sending, aging, case assembly.", "owned_domain": [ "FollowUpItem", "AECommentRecord", "MonthlyCompletenessPack" ], "application_services": [ "SendFollowUpItem", "AssemblePack", "DeliverPack" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Email-send adapter", "Posting-file generator" ], "public_interfaces": [ "case.delivered event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot bypass quality-assurance signoff gate" ] }, { "name": "quality-assurance", "purpose": "Signoff and dispute-support lifecycle.", "owned_domain": [ "Signoff", "dispute-support" ], "application_services": [ "ApproveArtifact", "RetractArtifact" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Signature-binding session store" ], "public_interfaces": [ "ArtifactSigned event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot draft on behalf of any other module" ] } ], "dependency_rules": [ "Modules communicate only via domain events or explicit application-service calls, never shared database tables", "quality-assurance has no outbound dependency on any other module" ] }, "security_governance": { "controls": [ { "risk": "Cross-developer data leak", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "impact": "severe", "control": "Row-level security on every developer-scoped table; retrieval indices partitioned per Timeshare owner", "audit": "Access logged with developer_id + session_id" }, { "risk": "Analyst identity spoofing", "context": "Quality Assurance", "impact": "severe", "control": "SSO + MFA; signature bound to authenticated session, not a form field", "audit": "Signature manifest logged per artifact" }, { "risk": "Demand-language developer document follow-up note sent", "context": "Delivery", "impact": "high", "control": "Deterministic filter blocks demand/collection/legal-threat patterns before analyst sees the draft", "audit": "Every blocked draft logged with the trigger phrase" } ], "ai_governance": [ "Every prompt version checked into the repo", "Every AgentRun logged with prompt version + validator verdict", "No fine-tuning on client data" ], "prompt_injection_defense": [ "Uploaded developer policy document content treated as untrusted input, never as instructions", "Extraction output schema-validated before use downstream" ], "sensitive_data_handling": [ "Financial/PII scrubbed from logs", "Per-Timeshare owner object-storage prefix isolation", "Encryption at rest and in transit" ], "access_control_matrix": [ { "role": "Timeshare owner", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "capabilities": [ "Upload developer policy documents", "View own timeshare owner's cycle status" ] }, { "role": "Licensed specialist", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence, Quality Assurance", "capabilities": [ "Approve gaps", "Sign Cases", "Approve developer document follow-up notes" ] }, { "role": "Senior Analyst", "context": "Quality Assurance", "capabilities": [ "Co-sign dispute-supports", "Second-review high-value developer document follow-up lists" ] } ], "audit_log_requirements": [ "Every command + payload hash logged with actor identity", "13-month rolling retention on AgentRun logs; 7-year retention on signed Cases" ] }, "observability": { "metrics": [ { "metric": "Auto-match rate", "type": "leading", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "why": "Directly drives analyst minutes per cycle", "target": "≥90%", "alert_threshold": "<80%" }, { "metric": "Analyst minutes per client per cycle", "type": "leading", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "why": "Core unit-economics driver", "target": "≤115 min by day 90", "alert_threshold": ">180 min" }, { "metric": "Client-caught material error rate", "type": "lagging", "context": "Quality Assurance", "why": "Trust and retention driver", "target": "<0.5%", "alert_threshold": ">1%" } ], "dashboards": [ "Ops dashboard: cycles in flight, analyst queue depth", "Economics dashboard: COGS/client, gross margin trend" ], "audit_reports": [ "Monthly signed-Case audit export per client" ], "quality_review_reports": [ "Weekly red-team seeded-error catch rate" ], "ai_evaluation_reports": [ "Monthly evaluator regression report per developer parser" ], "client_outcome_reports": [ "Cleared-first report per client per quarter" ] }, "testing_strategy": { "tests": [ { "type": "unit", "validates": "Source-evidence check math and eligibility finding thresholds", "context": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "example": "Case total must equal sum of matched + exception-coded lines" }, { "type": "contract", "validates": "Per-section parser output schema", "context": "Intake & Normalization", "example": "Gold-standard fixture developer policy document per developer re-run on every prompt change" }, { "type": "e2e", "validates": "Full intake -> match -> analyst signoff -> delivery path", "context": "cross-context", "example": "Smoke test against 5 sample developer policy document formats" } ], "critical_domain_rules": [ "Statute-element completeness before signature", "No eligibility finding gap without a cited source and requirement reference", "No developer document follow-up note without authorization on file" ], "ai_eval_dataset": [ "Gold-standard fixture developer policy documents per developer", "Analyst-corrected historical matches and classifications" ], "regression_plan": "Every parser/prompt/model change re-runs the full fixture suite before touching a live client developer policy document.", "contract_testing_plan": "Per-developer policy document schema contract tests run in CI on every parser change.", "manual_qa_checklist": [ "10% second-pass sample of auto-matched lines", "Monthly red-team seeded-error check", "Every Developer document follow-up list over $250 second-reviewed" ] }, "mvp_roadmap": [ { "phase": "Thin slice", "goal": "One end-to-end Exit Path Diagnostic delivered and analyst-signed", "features": [ "The exit requestFile intake", "Single-developer-format extraction", "Manual-assisted matching" ], "contexts": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence" ], "ai_needs": [ "Extraction Agent v1" ], "human_workflows": [ "Founder-run analyst role" ], "data_needs": [ "Fixture developer policy documents for 5 formats" ], "integrations": [ "None — manual contract & fee statement set upload" ], "risks": [ "Analyst cycle time far above target at pilot 1" ], "exit_criteria": [ "1 scan delivered within 10 business days, analyst-signed" ] } ], "scaling_roadmap": [ { "stage": "Pilot (1-10 clients)", "trigger": "First 10 pilot timeshare owners onboarded", "architecture_change": "None — single monolith suffices", "operational_change": "Founder is the sole analyst", "risk": "Analyst bottleneck at any volume spike" }, { "stage": "Early scale (10-50 clients)", "trigger": "Day-90 checkpoint targets met", "architecture_change": "Background job queue for developer policy document extraction", "operational_change": "Contract a second licensed specialist", "risk": "Parser library coverage gaps on new developers slow onboarding" } ], "risk_register": [ { "risk": "case portal developer bundles Completeness 'free' with a developer document follow-up flow", "likelihood": "medium-high", "impact": "high", "signal": "Yardi or a competing case portal module adds follow-up/Delivery features", "mitigation": "Portal-agnostic positioning; redelivery/follow-up as the human moat", "owner": "owner", "context": "Delivery" }, { "risk": "Scan-to-desk conversion underperforms", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "severe", "signal": "Pilot cohort conversion below 25%", "mitigation": "Pilot gate at 25%; alternative packaging tested in cohort 2", "owner": "owner", "context": "product" }, { "risk": "False-positive eligibility finding gap sent to a developer", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "signal": "Developer disputes an developer document follow-up note as unfounded", "mitigation": "100% analyst approval; evidence-link requirement; developer document follow-up note-not-demand language", "owner": "legal", "context": "Delivery" } ], "adrs": [ { "id": "ADR-001", "decision": "Adopt a modular monolith, not microservices, at launch", "status": "accepted", "context": "Founder-operated team; low ops burden required", "options": [ "Modular monolith", "Microservices per bounded context", "No-code workflow tool" ], "chosen": "Modular monolith", "business_reason": "Fastest path to first paid pilot without a platform team", "technical_reason": "One deploy, one audit boundary, easy to reason about at this scale", "tradeoffs": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "risks": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "revisit_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to one module", "why": "One deploy, one audit boundary, easy to reason about at this scale", "consequences": "Will need extraction into services if analyst-console load grows sharply", "reversal": "Would require a migration of the affected module's data model.", "revisit_when": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to one module" }, { "id": "ADR-002", "decision": "Deterministic code owns all money math; the model never computes a final dollar figure", "status": "accepted", "context": "Statute-element completeness is a hard trust requirement", "options": [ "Model computes totals", "Deterministic code computes totals, model only extracts/classifies" ], "chosen": "Deterministic code computes totals", "business_reason": "A wrong dollar figure from a model is the single fastest way to lose a client's trust", "technical_reason": "Removes an entire class of hallucination risk from the highest-stakes output", "tradeoffs": "Slightly more engineering work per new transaction-type edge case", "risks": "Edge cases not yet coded fall through to analyst manual calculation", "revisit_trigger": "None — this is a standing invariant, not revisited", "why": "Removes an entire class of hallucination risk from the highest-stakes output", "consequences": "Slightly more engineering work per new transaction-type edge case", "reversal": "Would require a migration of the affected module's data model.", "revisit_when": "None — this is a standing invariant, not revisited" } ], "self_audit": { "scores": [ { "category": "domain_modeling", "score": 4, "weakness": "Building-type quirk knowledge base is described but not yet instantiated with real developer data", "improvement": "Populate from the first 5 pilot timeshare owners' actual developer mixes" }, { "category": "ai_governance", "score": 4, "weakness": "Evaluator regression suite depends on fixture developer policy documents not yet collected at volume", "improvement": "Build the fixture library incrementally from each pilot's real (anonymized) developer policy documents" }, { "category": "compliance_boundary", "score": 3, "weakness": "State-by-state collection-Timeshare owner-statute review for the rush rider is not yet complete", "improvement": "Complete counsel review in the first 5 operating states before offering the rider broadly" } ], "weakest_parts": [ "State-by-state licensing review for the rush rider", "Building-type quirk knowledge base population" ], "biggest_assumptions": [ "Scan-to-desk conversion reaches 25-40%", "Analyst minutes per client fall as projected by day 90" ], "highest_risk_decisions": [ "Offering the rush rider before full state-by-state counsel review", "Relying on a single named analyst at pilot scale" ], "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": [ "Ship a modular-monolith, evidence-linked, analyst-gated vertical slice for DeedBack Clear. Preserve the invariant that no Exit Path Report or developer document follow-up note leaves the system without a signed human recontract. Do not launch commercially until owner-action facts close and at least one analyst-recontractd Exit Path Report has shipped.", "Do NOT default to microservices. Extract a module only when a specific pressure demands it.", "Do NOT allow AI outputs to leave the Exit-Path Matching & Evidence or Delivery contexts without OutputValidator pass and citation coverage.", "Do NOT ship any public claim on the DeedBack Clear microsite while owner-action facts (entity, analyst identity, trademark clearance) remain open.", "Do NOT reuse a competitor/customer pairing or a dollar figure in client-facing copy without a fresh-verification citation — this exact failure mode (a misattributed customer relationship) was found and corrected in this build." ], "extensions": { "service_business_reality_check": { "is_service_business": true, "paid_outcome_clear": true, "workflow_present": true, "ai_native_fit_score": 4.5, "red_flags": [] }, "ai_native_fit": { "score": 4.6, "why": "High-volume, document-heavy, rules-based matching with judgment concentrated in a small exception queue — the exact shape of work current frontier models do well, and margins expand as parsing/matching accuracy improves.", "disqualifiers": [] }, "domain_evidence_register": [ { "claim": "the applicable state timeshare statute requires a case-cycle return + exit path report or full loss of retention rights; verified against US Senate statute text and NYS HCR Fact Sheet #9.", "evidence_type": "primary-research summary", "source": "US Senate the applicable state timeshare statute; NYS HCR Fact Sheet #9", "strength": "high", "gaps": "None — corroborated across two independent trade-press summaries" }, { "claim": "the developer certified-exit policy update (eff. Nov 15, 2025) extended the state timeshare statute protections to points-based ownerships; verified against US Senate the developer certified-exit policy update and the launch states state regulator FAQ.", "evidence_type": "press + legal filing coverage", "source": "US Senate the developer certified-exit policy update; the launch states state regulator Security Deposits FAQ", "strength": "high", "gaps": "Exact customer roster not independently verifiable — corrected one misattributed customer pairing this build" } ], "assumption_register": [ { "assumption": "Scan-to-desk conversion reaches 25-40%", "impact_if_wrong": "severe — wedge economics fail", "how_to_validate": "10-Timeshare owner pilot cohort with explicit pricing conversation", "blocking": true }, { "assumption": "Analyst minutes per client fall as parser coverage grows", "impact_if_wrong": "high — margin target missed", "how_to_validate": "Instrument analyst minutes per cycle from pilot 1 onward", "blocking": false } ], "language_conflict_map": [ { "term": "case", "meaning_a": "Exit Path Report (this business's bundled deliverable: Case + Developer document follow-up list + report + furnish decisions + posting file)", "context_a": "DeedBack Clear", "meaning_b": "A different bundled-deliverable term used by unrelated businesses elsewhere in the AINBIS caseload", "context_b": "other caseload businesses (not this one)", "resolution": "Always qualify as 'Exit Path Report' in DeedBack Clear copy; never bare 'case' without the qualifier in cross-caseload contexts" } ], "build_buy_integrate": [ { "subdomain": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "decision": "build", "reason": "Core differentiated IP — the parser/matching engine is the moat" }, { "subdomain": "Referral & Outreach", "decision": "buy", "reason": "Off-the-shelf CRM suffices; not differentiating" } ], "core_protection_strategy": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "boundary_stress_tests": [ { "scenario": "A developer disputes an developer document follow-up note as a collection demand", "contexts_touched": [ "Delivery" ], "breaks_if": "The collection-language filter has a gap for a novel phrasing", "verdict": "Mitigated by analyst approval as a second gate" } ], "unresolved_ownership": [ { "concept": "Trade eligibility finding scope accuracy", "candidates": [ "Timeshare owner", "Licensed specialist" ], "recommendation": "Timeshare owner owns and approves the eligibility finding scope; DeedBack Clear only computes from it" } ], "published_language_contracts": [ { "producer": "Intake & Normalization", "consumer": "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "contract": "Canonical normalized developer policy document schema", "versioning": "Schema version pinned per developer parser recontract" } ], "shared_kernel_warnings": [ "None identified — bounded contexts communicate only via events, no shared kernel" ], "aggregate_stress_tests": [ { "aggregate": "Exit casePackAggregate", "scenario": "Concurrent analyst sign attempts on the same Case", "invariant_at_risk": "Statute-element completeness before signature", "verdict": "Mitigated by optimistic locking on the aggregate root" } ], "agent_stress_tests": [ { "agent": "Developer document Follow-up Drafter Agent", "scenario": "A developer's known aggressive collections desk prompts an escalated tone", "failure_mode": "Draft reads as a threat despite passing the deterministic filter", "guardrail": "Analyst approval catches tone issues the filter misses", "verdict": "Acceptable with analyst gate" } ], "regulated_domain_handling": [ { "regime": "US General Obligations Law the state timeshare statute/the state timeshare statute", "applies_because": "DeedBack Clear performs back-office accounting adjacent to a licensed industry", "controls": [ "No selling/soliciting/negotiating", "No consumer contact" ], "evidence_required": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "regime": "State collection-Timeshare owner statutes", "applies_because": "Developer developer document follow-up notes could be miscategorized as third-party debt collection", "controls": [ "Follow-up emails sent under timeshare owner's own name", "Administrative-agent authorization", "No demand language" ], "evidence_required": "Per-state counsel review before offering the rush rider" } ], "unit_economics": { "price_model": "Flat monthly desk fee by volume tier + one-time scan + capped rush rider", "unit_of_value": "case cycle (one client-month)", "gross_margin_pct": 62, "cost_drivers": [ "Model inference (parse/match/draft)", "Analyst minutes", "QA sampling" ], "breakeven_note": "COGS/client falls from $510 at launch to $245 by year 1 as parser coverage and auto-match rate improve" }, "margin_leakage_map": [ { "leakage": "Analyst minutes not falling with parser coverage", "cause": "New developer formats not yet in the fixture library", "impact": "Gross margin compression per new client", "mitigation": "Fixture library grows with every pilot; reuse across clients on the same developer" } ], "slop_findings": [ { "pattern": "Generic SaaS marketing phrasing", "status": "checked", "note": "Banned-phrase list enforced on the landing page (no 'leverage AI', 'streamline', etc.)" } ], "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" }, { "name": "Analyst identity confirmed", "ok": false, "evidence": "Pending owner action" }, { "name": "Trademark clearance", "ok": false, "evidence": "Pending owner action" } ] } ], "contradiction_scan": [ { "id": "C1", "severity": "medium", "message": "Statewide case-timeline miss-rate has no public audit dataset; not used as a load-bearing go reason (blueprint labels it Unverified/Low).", "refs": [ "business-plan.md fresh-verification notes" ] } ], "rubric": { "categories": [ { "category": "domain_modeling", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "ai_governance", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "compliance_boundary", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "unit_economics", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true }, { "category": "gtm_clarity", "score": 4, "min": 3, "passed": true } ], "pass": true, "average": 4.1 }, "foundry_package": { "version": "1.0.0", "checksum": "n/a-generated-locally", "counts": { "subdomains": 4, "bounded_contexts": 4, "aggregates": 7, "events": 6, "commands": 6, "policies": 4, "ai_agents": 4, "invariants": 4, "integrations": 4, "adrs": 2 }, "subset": { "subdomains": [ "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "Delivery", "Evidence & Compliance", "Referral & Outreach" ], "bounded_contexts": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence", "Delivery", "Quality Assurance" ], "aggregates": [ "The exit requestFileAggregate", "CaseFileAggregate", "EvidenceMatrixAggregate", "Exit casePackAggregate", "FollowUpItemAggregate", "ConfirmationAggregate", "DisputeSupportAggregate" ], "events": [ "developer policy document.received", "developer policy document.normalized", "pack_cycle.evidence_matched", "eligibility finding.analyst_approved", "Exit casePack.signed", "followup_reminder.sent" ], "commands": [ "ReceiveThe exit requestFile", "NormalizeThe exit requestFile", "RunMatching", "ApproveEligibility finding", "RecontractPack", "SendFollowUpItem" ], "policies": [ "Auto-route low-confidence match to analyst", "Block collection-language patterns", "Second-analyst spot check", "Auto-escalate aging developer document follow-up note" ], "ai_agents": [ "Extraction Agent", "Matching Agent", "Eligibility finding Drafter Agent", "Developer document Follow-up Drafter Agent" ], "invariants": [ "A Exit Path Report cannot be signed without tying to developer policy document totals to the penny", "A FollowUpItem cannot be sent without analyst approval and Timeshare owner authorization on file", "No eligibility finding gap is published without a cited source-developer policy document and statute-element reference", "DeedBack Clear never issues a coverage or claims-adjustment determination" ], "integrations": [ "Property management system (case portal) export", "developer policy document portals", "Buildium / contract & fee statement posting-file import", "Developer developer document mailbox" ], "adrs": [ "ADR-001", "ADR-002" ] } } } }, "ddd_coverage": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "total": 17, "passed": 17, "pct": 100, "checks": [ { "key": "actors", "label": "Actors", "count": 4, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "subdomains", "label": "Subdomains", "count": 4, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "bounded_contexts", "label": "Bounded Contexts", "count": 4, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "aggregates", "label": "Aggregates", "count": 7, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "events", "label": "Events", "count": 6, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "commands", "label": "Commands", "count": 6, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "policies", "label": "Policies", "count": 4, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "ai_agents", "label": "Ai Agents", "count": 4, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "invariants", "label": "Invariants", "count": 4, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "use_cases", "label": "Use Cases", "count": 2, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "human_roles", "label": "Human Roles", "count": 3, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "data_objects", "label": "Data Objects", "count": 3, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "risk_register", "label": "Risk Register", "count": 3, "min": 3, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "adrs", "label": "Adrs", "count": 2, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "mvp_roadmap", "label": "Mvp Roadmap", "count": 1, "min": 1, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "scaling_roadmap", "label": "Scaling Roadmap", "count": 2, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." }, { "key": "context_map", "label": "Context Map", "count": 4, "min": 2, "ok": true, "gate": "domain", "unblock": "Not needed — check passes at current counts." } ], "failingGates": [] }, "architecture": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "archetypes": [ "Exit case-and-Delivery workflow application", "back-office document-intelligence service" ], "archetype_impact": "case cycle (client + calendar month) is the global scoping parameter — every read/write is scoped by Timeshare owner developer and cycle, not just developer alone.", "personality": [ "numerate", "calm", "evidence-first", "no hype" ], "forces_ranked": [ { "force": "Trust/accuracy (statute-element completeness)", "why": "A wrong Case is the single fastest way to lose a client" }, { "force": "Founder-operability (low ops burden)", "why": "Founder-operated launch cannot support a platform team" }, { "force": "Time-to-first-revenue", "why": "Pilot cohort must convert within 90 days to validate the model" }, { "force": "Scalability beyond pilot", "why": "Lowest priority at launch; revisit at 20+ clients" } ], "tradeoffs": [ "Modular monolith trades some future scaling ease for launch speed and audit simplicity", "Manual developer follow-up at launch trades automation for learning real response patterns first" ], "quality_scenarios": [ { "attribute": "accuracy", "assumption": "Every developer policy document line traces to its source", "target": "Case source-contract document check to the penny before signature, 100% of recontracts" }, { "attribute": "reviewability", "assumption": "A analyst can reconstruct any evidence chain quickly", "target": "Under 5 minutes to trace any Case line to its source developer policy document" } ], "options": [ { "style": "Modular monolith", "complexity": "low", "cost": "low", "ops_burden": "low", "team_fit": "high (founder-operated)", "scaling_path": "Extract modules under pressure", "security_impact": "Single audit boundary", "fits_here": true, "fits_when": "Founder/small-team launch", "wrong_here": false, "recommended": true }, { "style": "Microservices per bounded context", "complexity": "high", "cost": "high", "ops_burden": "high", "team_fit": "low at launch", "scaling_path": "Already decomposed", "security_impact": "More boundaries to secure", "fits_here": false, "fits_when": "Large team, proven scale pressure", "wrong_here": true, "recommended": false }, { "style": "No-code workflow tool", "complexity": "low", "cost": "low", "ops_burden": "low", "team_fit": "medium", "scaling_path": "Poor — hard to enforce deterministic gates", "security_impact": "Developer-dependent", "fits_here": false, "fits_when": "No hard money-math invariant", "wrong_here": true, "recommended": false } ], "chosen_style": "modular monolith", "chosen_rationale": "Modular monolith with background jobs for bursty developer document-extraction work — one audit boundary, low ops burden, easy per-context ownership as the team grows.", "rejected": [ { "style": "Microservices per bounded context", "why_rejected": "Premature operational complexity for a founder-operated launch" }, { "style": "No-code workflow tool", "why_rejected": "Cannot reliably enforce the deterministic source-page-complete gate" } ], "target": { "overview": "Single-region modular monolith, Postgres primary store, background job queue for extraction/matching, internal analyst console, public marketing microsite.", "frontend": "Analyst console (internal, authenticated) + public marketing microsite (static, self-contained)", "backend": "Single deployable service, module boundaries enforced by code convention and event-only cross-module calls", "data": "Postgres with row-level developer security; object storage for developer policy document files", "api": "Internal authenticated API for the analyst console; no public API at launch", "authn_authz": "SSO + MFA for analysts; row-level auth scaffolding for a future client portal", "integrations": "contract & fee statement set file ingestion; developer policy document mailbox/portal; Buildium/contract & fee statement posting-file export", "background_jobs": "The exit requestFile extraction, matching, aging-escalation checks", "object_storage": "Encrypted, per-client-prefix isolated", "notifications": "Email only at launch (client comms + internal escalation alerts)", "search": "None at launch", "analytics": "Internal metrics dashboard only; no third-party analytics on the analyst console", "ai": "Single frontier-model provider via a scripted extraction/matching/drafting pipeline, prompts + fixtures versioned in-repo", "observability": "Structured logs, RED metrics, model-call cost/latency spans", "deployment": "Single production region, multi-AZ, preview environment per PR", "security": "Row-level developer isolation, encryption at rest/in transit, least-privilege access", "dr": "Daily backups, tested restore runbook, RPO 24h / RTO 4h at launch scale" }, "modules": [ { "name": "intake-normalization", "purpose": "The exit requestFile receipt, extraction, and source-contract document check.", "owned_domain": [ "The exit requestFile" ], "application_services": [ "ReceiveThe exit requestFile", "NormalizeThe exit requestFile" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Mailbox listener", "Object storage adapter", "Extraction-model client" ], "public_interfaces": [ "developer policy document.normalized event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot call exit case-matching internals directly — event only" ], "responsibility": "The exit requestFile receipt, extraction, and source-contract document check.", "owned_data": [ "The exit requestFile" ], "events_produced": [ "developer policy document.normalized event" ], "events_consumed": [], "interfaces": [ "developer policy document.normalized event" ], "depends_on": [], "entities": [ "The exit requestFile" ], "failure_risks": [ "Module-boundary violation via direct DB access" ], "scaling": "Extract to a service only under sustained isolated load pressure", "future_split_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to this module" }, { "name": "exit case-matching", "purpose": "Matching, eligibility finding classification, Case source-contract document check.", "owned_domain": [ "Section", "EvidenceMatrix", "Case" ], "application_services": [ "RunMatching", "ApproveEligibility finding", "RecontractPack" ], "infra_adapters": [ "spec-export parser", "maintenance-fee statement store" ], "public_interfaces": [ "eligibility finding.analyst_approved event", "Exit casePack.signed event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot call review-delivery internals directly — event only" ], "responsibility": "Matching, eligibility finding classification, Case source-contract document check.", "owned_data": [ "Section", "EvidenceMatrix", "Case" ], "events_produced": [ "eligibility finding.analyst_approved event", "Exit casePack.signed event" ], "events_consumed": [], "interfaces": [ "eligibility finding.analyst_approved event", "Exit casePack.signed event" ], "depends_on": [], "entities": [ "Section", "EvidenceMatrix", "Case" ], "failure_risks": [ "Module-boundary violation via direct DB access" ], "scaling": "Extract to a service only under sustained isolated load pressure", "future_split_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to this module" }, { "name": "review-delivery", "purpose": "Developer-follow-up drafting/sending, aging, case assembly.", "owned_domain": [ "FollowUpItem", "AECommentRecord", "MonthlyCompletenessPack" ], "application_services": [ "SendFollowUpItem", "AssemblePack", "DeliverPack" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Email-send adapter", "Posting-file generator" ], "public_interfaces": [ "case.delivered event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot bypass quality-assurance signoff gate" ], "responsibility": "Developer-follow-up drafting/sending, aging, case assembly.", "owned_data": [ "FollowUpItem", "AECommentRecord", "MonthlyCompletenessPack" ], "events_produced": [ "case.delivered event" ], "events_consumed": [], "interfaces": [ "case.delivered event" ], "depends_on": [], "entities": [ "FollowUpItem", "AECommentRecord", "MonthlyCompletenessPack" ], "failure_risks": [ "Module-boundary violation via direct DB access" ], "scaling": "Extract to a service only under sustained isolated load pressure", "future_split_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to this module" }, { "name": "quality-assurance", "purpose": "Signoff and dispute-support lifecycle.", "owned_domain": [ "Signoff", "dispute-support" ], "application_services": [ "ApproveArtifact", "RetractArtifact" ], "infra_adapters": [ "Signature-binding session store" ], "public_interfaces": [ "ArtifactSigned event" ], "forbidden_deps": [ "Cannot draft on behalf of any other module" ], "responsibility": "Signoff and dispute-support lifecycle.", "owned_data": [ "Signoff", "dispute-support" ], "events_produced": [ "ArtifactSigned event" ], "events_consumed": [], "interfaces": [ "ArtifactSigned event" ], "depends_on": [], "entities": [ "Signoff", "dispute-support" ], "failure_risks": [ "Module-boundary violation via direct DB access" ], "scaling": "Extract to a service only under sustained isolated load pressure", "future_split_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to this module" } ], "data_architecture": { "primary_db": "Postgres", "secondary": [ "Object storage for developer policy document files" ], "cache": "None at launch", "search": "None at launch", "vector": "None at launch (retrieval is structured lookup, not embeddings, at this scale)", "object_storage": "Per-Timeshare owner-prefix isolated bucket", "schema_strategy": "Migration-gated, reviewed per PR", "migrations": "Forward-only, reviewed", "backups": "Daily automated, tested restore quarterly", "retention": "7 years on signed Cases/developer document follow-up lists; 13 months on agent-run logs", "audit_logs": "Append-only, hash-chained per case cycle", "soft_delete": "Used for client offboarding, hard-delete on retention expiry", "privacy": "Per-developer row-level security", "encryption": "At rest and in transit", "multi_tenancy": "Logical isolation via developer_id row-level security" }, "api": { "style": "Internal REST", "public_vs_internal": "Internal only at launch", "versioning": "Path-versioned when a client portal ships", "rate_limiting": "Per-developer budget caps on model-backed endpoints", "idempotency": "Idempotency keys on developer policy document ingestion", "pagination": "Cursor-based on list endpoints", "error_format": "Structured JSON problem-details", "webhook_security": "N/A at launch", "retries": "Exponential backoff on model-provider calls", "contract_testing": "Per-section parser schema contract tests in CI", "backward_compat": "N/A at launch (no public API)", "contract_testing_plan": "Fixture-based regression suite run on every parser/prompt change" }, "security": { "authn": "SSO + MFA for analysts", "authz": "Role-based, server-side capability checks", "tenant_isolation": "Row-level security keyed on developer_id", "secrets": "Managed secrets store, no secrets in code", "encryption": "At rest and in transit", "session": "Server-side session with short-lived tokens", "input_validation": "Schema validation on every ingestion path", "api_protection": "Rate limiting + auth on all internal endpoints", "audit_log": "Append-only, hash-chained", "admin_access": "Break-glass access logged and time-boxed", "supply_chain": "Dependency scanning in CI", "threat_model": [ "Cross-developer leak", "Analyst identity spoofing", "Prompt injection via uploaded developer policy documents" ], "abuse_cases": [ "Bulk fraudulent developer policy document upload attempting to poison the matching engine" ], "zero_trust": "Server-side checks on every capability, never client-only", "asvs_notes": "Aligned to OWASP ASVS L2 controls for a B2B financial-data service" }, "reliability": { "failure_modes": [ "Model-provider outage mid-extraction", "Developer portal credential expiry", "The exit requestFile queue backlog at month-end" ], "graceful_degradation": "Queue and retry rather than fail hard; analyst notified of delayed cycles", "retry_policy": "Exponential backoff, max 5 attempts on model calls", "timeouts": "30s extraction timeout, background-job fallback beyond that", "circuit_breaker": "Trip on repeated model-provider failures, alert on-call", "queueing": "Background job queue for extraction/matching", "idempotency": "Idempotency keys on developer policy document ingestion", "dlq": "Dead-letter queue for repeatedly failing extraction jobs", "transactions": "Aggregate-scoped transactions, no cross-aggregate transactions", "dr": "Daily backups, quarterly restore test", "incident_response": "Runbook: detect, contain, notify, root-cause, postmortem", "slos": [ { "name": "p95 developer policy document extraction latency", "target": "under 30s" }, { "name": "Monthly case on-time delivery", "target": "≥95% of cycles by the 5th business day" } ] }, "scaling": { "mvp_can_stay_simple": [ "Single Postgres instance", "In-process event dispatch" ], "modular_now": [ "Module boundaries enforced by convention" ], "deferrable": [ "Client-facing portal", "Public API", "Vector search" ], "breaks_first": "Analyst throughput before infrastructure", "db_path": "Read replicas once reporting load grows", "jobs_path": "Managed queue once in-process dispatch saturates", "cache_path": "Add a cache layer only if read latency becomes a measured problem", "search_path": "Add full-text search only if client-portal search becomes a real need", "files_path": "Object storage scales natively", "api_path": "Add a versioned public API only when a client portal ships", "multi_region": "Not needed at this scale", "cost_control": "Per-developer model-spend budget caps" }, "ai": { "provider": "Single frontier-model provider (model-agnostic schemas/prompts, swappable within days)", "prompt_mgmt": "Versioned in-repo, immutable once published", "rag": "Structured per-client + per-element retrieval, not embeddings-based at this scale", "vector": "Not used at this scale", "embeddings": "Not used at this scale", "eval": "Fixture-based regression suite per developer", "hitl": "Analyst gate on every eligibility finding gap and developer document follow-up note", "guardrails": "Deterministic output filters + structured validation", "prompt_injection": "Uploaded developer policy document content treated as untrusted data, never instructions", "leakage": "Per-developer retrieval partitioning", "fallback": "Dual-provider fallback path documented, not yet implemented at pilot scale", "latency_cost": "Tracked per AgentRun", "memory": "Session-scoped only, no persistent cross-client memory", "tool_permissions": "Extraction/matching/drafting agents have read-only access to their own context's data", "auditability": "Every AgentRun logged with prompt version + validator verdict", "citation": "Every eligibility finding gap and eligibility-adjacent claim must cite a source" }, "devops": { "environments": [ "local", "preview (per-PR)", "staging", "production (single region + multi-AZ)" ], "cicd": "PR -> typecheck + unit + snapshot -> preview deploy -> main auto-deploys", "iac": "Declarative infra config checked into the repo", "secrets": "Managed secrets store", "preview_envs": "Per-PR ephemeral environments", "migrations": "Reviewed, forward-only", "rollback": "Blue/green deploy with fast rollback", "release_style": "Continuous deployment on main, feature-flagged risky changes", "feature_flags": "Used for prompt-version rollouts", "monitoring": "Structured logs + RED metrics", "alerting": "On-call paged on SLO breach", "logs": "Structured, developer-scoped, PII-scrubbed", "error_tracking": "Source-mapped error tracking", "uptime": "Target 99.5% at pilot scale", "cost_monitoring": "Per-developer model-spend dashboard" }, "testing": { "unit": "Source-evidence check math and eligibility finding thresholds", "integration": "Cross-module event contracts", "contract": "Per-section parser schema", "e2e": "Intake to delivery smoke test", "security": "Row-level isolation tests", "a11y": "axe-core on analyst surfaces", "load": "Month-end volume simulation", "chaos": "Model-provider outage simulation", "migration": "Forward-only migration dry-run in CI", "backup_restore": "Quarterly restore drill", "ai_eval": "Fixture-based regression suite per developer", "test_data": "Anonymized gold-standard developer policy document fixtures" }, "observability": { "logs": "Structured, developer-scoped, PII-scrubbed", "metrics": "RED metrics per workflow", "traces": "Model-call spans with cost + latency", "audit_events": "Append-only, hash-chained per cycle", "business_events": "scan_requested, pack_delivered, eligibility finding_approved", "error_tracking": "Source-mapped error tracking", "security_monitoring": "Cross-developer access-attempt alerting", "cost_monitoring": "Per-developer model-spend dashboard", "dashboards": [ "Ops dashboard", "Economics dashboard" ], "alert_thresholds": [ "Auto-match rate <80%", "Analyst minutes >180/cycle" ], "triage": "On-call reviews alert, checks developer scope, escalates per runbook" }, "cost": { "drivers": [ { "name": "Model inference per developer policy document", "note": "Scales with developer policy document volume, falls per-developer policy document as parser coverage grows" }, { "name": "Analyst labor minutes", "note": "Falls with auto-match rate improvement" }, { "name": "Object storage", "note": "Linear with client count, low absolute cost" } ], "likely_traps": [ "Over-provisioning background workers before real volume data exists" ], "controls": [ "Per-developer budget caps", "Monthly cost-per-client dashboard review" ] }, "multi_tenancy": { "model": "Shared infrastructure, logical isolation", "isolation": "Row-level security keyed on developer_id", "tenant_aware_authz": "Every capability check includes developer_id", "tenant_config": "Per-Timeshare owner section list and maintenance-fee statement config", "branding": "N/A at launch (internal-only console)", "tenant_export": "Full-cycle export available on request", "tenant_deletion": "Soft-delete then hard-delete on retention expiry", "tenant_audit": "Per-developer audit log export", "noisy_neighbor": "Per-developer concurrency and budget caps", "tenant_rate_limits": "Per-developer model-call budget", "billing": "Stripe, flat monthly + one-time scan fee", "why_this_fits": "Small client count at launch makes logical isolation sufficient; a hard single-developer requirement would trigger a per-client deployment exception." }, "privacy_compliance": { "data_classification": "Financial/PII tiers documented in product.security.data_classifications", "minimization": "Only fields needed for matching/Completeness retained", "consent": "Engagement letter + developer-communication authorization", "access_logs": "Per-access logged with actor + timestamp", "audit_trails": "Append-only, hash-chained", "retention": "7 years on Cases/developer document follow-up lists; 13 months on agent logs", "legal_hold": "Manual legal-hold flag overrides retention deletion", "right_to_delete": "Honored post-retention-window or on contract termination per engagement letter", "right_to_export": "Full-cycle export available on request", "sensitive_handling": "Confidential project-data handling program", "boundaries": "No Timeshare owner activity; no fund custody; no tax/legal advice", "residency": "US-only at launch", "vendor_risk": "Single model-provider risk documented; dual-provider fallback on the roadmap", "breach_response": "Documented incident-response runbook", "admin_controls": "Break-glass access logged and time-boxed", "evidence_collection": "Audit-log export within 24 hours of a breach or dispute" }, "frontend": { "framework": "React (internal analyst console)", "rendering": "Client-rendered SPA for the console; static self-contained HTML for the public microsite", "routing": "Client-side router for the console", "state": "Local + server-state cache", "server_state": "Fetched per analyst session", "forms": "Native form elements with client + server validation", "error_handling": "Structured error boundaries", "components": "Design-token-driven component library", "design_system": "Semantic tokens per DESIGN-STANDARD.md", "auth_ui": "SSO redirect flow", "authz_aware_ui": "Capability-gated UI elements", "a11y": "WCAG 2.2 AA target", "i18n": "en-US only at launch", "performance": "Console not performance-critical (internal); microsite budget ≤120KB, no external requests", "bundling": "Standard bundler, code-split by module", "testing": "Component + e2e tests on analyst surfaces", "offline": "Not supported at launch", "realtime": "Not needed at launch" }, "backend": { "framework": "Node/TypeScript service", "layering": "domain / application / infra per module", "domain": "Aggregates + value objects per bounded context", "services": "Application services orchestrate domain + infra", "repositories": "One repository per aggregate root", "validation": "Schema validation at every boundary", "authorization": "Server-side capability checks only", "jobs": "Background job queue for extraction/matching", "events": "In-process event dispatch at launch", "files": "Object storage adapter", "email_sms": "Email adapter for client comms and developer document follow-up notes", "scheduled": "Aging-escalation checks run daily", "errors": "Structured error types per layer", "logging": "Structured, developer-scoped, PII-scrubbed", "config": "Environment-based config, no secrets in code", "di": "Constructor-based dependency injection", "testing": "Unit + contract + e2e per module" }, "diagrams": { "context_mermaid": "graph TD; Timeshare owner-->Intake; Intake-->Completeness; Completeness-->Delivery; Delivery-->QA", "container_mermaid": "graph TD; Console-->API; API-->Postgres; API-->ObjectStorage; API-->ModelProvider", "data_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; The exit requestFile-->Extraction-->Matching-->EvidenceMatrix-->Case-->Case", "auth_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; Analyst-->SSO-->MFA-->Session", "authz_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; Request-->RoleCheck-->DeveloperCheck-->Allow", "deployment_mermaid": "graph TD; PR-->Preview-->Main-->Production", "background_job_mermaid": "graph LR; Queue-->Worker-->Retry-->DLQ", "event_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; The exit requestFileExtracted-->Evidence matchCompleted-->MatrixDrafted-->PackSigned", "failure_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; Failure-->Retry-->CircuitBreaker-->Alert", "multi_tenant_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; Request-->DeveloperContext-->RowLevelSecurity-->Data", "ai_flow_mermaid": "graph LR; The exit requestFile-->ExtractionAgent-->MatchingAgent-->DrafterAgent-->Analyst" }, "adrs": [ { "id": "ADR-001", "decision": "Adopt a modular monolith, not microservices, at launch", "status": "accepted", "context": "Founder-operated team; low ops burden required", "options": [ "Modular monolith", "Microservices per bounded context", "No-code workflow tool" ], "chosen": "Modular monolith", "business_reason": "Fastest path to first paid pilot without a platform team", "technical_reason": "One deploy, one audit boundary, easy to reason about at this scale", "tradeoffs": "Will need extraction into services if analyst-console load grows sharply", "risks": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "revisit_trigger": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to one module", "why": "One deploy, one audit boundary, easy to reason about at this scale", "consequences": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "reversal": "Would require a migration of the affected module's data model.", "revisit_when": "Sustained CPU/latency pressure isolated to one module" }, { "id": "ADR-002", "decision": "Deterministic code owns all money math; the model never computes a final dollar figure", "status": "accepted", "context": "Statute-element completeness is a hard trust requirement", "options": [ "Model computes totals", "Deterministic code computes totals, model only extracts/classifies" ], "chosen": "Deterministic code computes totals", "business_reason": "A wrong dollar figure from a model is the single fastest way to lose a client's trust", "technical_reason": "Removes an entire class of hallucination risk from the highest-stakes output", "tradeoffs": "Slightly more engineering work per new transaction-type edge case", "risks": "Edge cases not yet coded fall through to analyst manual calculation", "revisit_trigger": "None — this is a standing invariant, not revisited", "why": "Removes an entire class of hallucination risk from the highest-stakes output", "consequences": "Slightly more engineering work per new transaction-type edge case", "reversal": "Would require a migration of the affected module's data model.", "revisit_when": "None — this is a standing invariant, not revisited" } ], "roadmap": [ { "phase": "Phase 0 — Discovery + pilot LOI", "weeks": "Weeks 1-2", "outcomes": [ "3-5 pilot Timeshare owner LOIs", "Evidence case from each pilot Timeshare owner", "Written ICP + pricing hypothesis" ], "exit_criteria": [ "≥3 LOIs signed", "Owner-action Case populated per Timeshare owner", "Analyst identity confirmed" ], "kill_criteria": [ "<2 LOIs after 2 weeks", "No willingness-to-pay signal above pilot price" ], "build": [ "3-5 pilot Timeshare owner LOIs", "Evidence case from each pilot Timeshare owner", "Written ICP + pricing hypothesis" ], "defer": [], "monitor": [ "≥3 LOIs signed", "Owner-action Case populated per Timeshare owner", "Analyst identity confirmed" ], "avoid": [ "<2 LOIs after 2 weeks", "No willingness-to-pay signal above pilot price" ], "acceptable_debt": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "dangerous_debt": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "triggers_to_change": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ] }, { "phase": "Phase 1 — Thin vertical slice", "weeks": "Weeks 3-4", "outcomes": [ "Intake -> match -> analyst signoff -> delivery working end-to-end for one contract & fee statement format", "Audit trail wired", "Instrumentation live" ], "exit_criteria": [ "1 real Exit Path Diagnostic delivered + analyst-signed", "p95 workflow latency published" ], "kill_criteria": [ "Analyst signoff cycle >10 business days", "Evidence bundle cannot be reconstructed on demand" ], "build": [ "Intake -> match -> analyst signoff -> delivery working end-to-end for one contract & fee statement format", "Audit trail wired", "Instrumentation live" ], "defer": [], "monitor": [ "1 real Exit Path Diagnostic delivered + analyst-signed", "p95 workflow latency published" ], "avoid": [ "Analyst signoff cycle >10 business days", "Evidence bundle cannot be reconstructed on demand" ], "acceptable_debt": "Manual developer follow-up and onboarding at pilot scale", "dangerous_debt": "Skipping the analyst-signoff gate under volume pressure", "triggers_to_change": "Kill/pivot criteria met at any phase gate" }, { "phase": "Phase 2 — Pilot cohort", "weeks": "Weeks 3-8", "outcomes": [ "10 pilot timeshare owners scanned", "First standard-price desk conversion", "SOC 2 Type I scoping" ], "exit_criteria": [ "≥1 standard-price contract", "Post-scan debrief trust signal captured", "Postmortem cadence in place" ], "kill_criteria": [ "No standard-price conversion by Day 90", "Scan-to-desk conversion below 25%" ], "build": [ "10 pilot timeshare owners scanned", "First standard-price desk conversion", "SOC 2 Type I scoping" ], "defer": [], "monitor": [ "≥1 standard-price contract", "Post-scan debrief trust signal captured", "Postmortem cadence in place" ], "avoid": [ "No standard-price conversion by Day 90", "Scan-to-desk conversion below 25%" ], "acceptable_debt": "Manual developer follow-up and onboarding at pilot scale", "dangerous_debt": "Skipping the analyst-signoff gate under volume pressure", "triggers_to_change": "Kill/pivot criteria met at any phase gate" }, { "phase": "Phase 3 — Recurring-desk scale-up", "weeks": "Weeks 9-13 (Day 90 checkpoint)", "outcomes": [ "Public commercial launch of the microsite as 'ready'", "Rush rider and Diligence Source-evidence check line active", "Owner-action Case closed for launch" ], "exit_criteria": [ "COGS/rework/cycle-time measured against target", "Expansion beyond the pilot cohort gated on targets, not calendar time" ], "kill_criteria": [ "Rework rate persistently above 3%", "Analyst minutes per client not falling with volume" ], "build": [ "Public commercial launch of the microsite as 'ready'", "Rush rider and Diligence Source-evidence check line active", "Owner-action Case closed for launch" ], "defer": [], "monitor": [ "COGS/rework/cycle-time measured against target", "Expansion beyond the pilot cohort gated on targets, not calendar time" ], "avoid": [ "Rework rate persistently above 3%", "Analyst minutes per client not falling with volume" ], "acceptable_debt": "Manual developer follow-up and onboarding at pilot scale", "dangerous_debt": "Skipping the analyst-signoff gate under volume pressure", "triggers_to_change": "Kill/pivot criteria met at any phase gate" } ], "anti_overengineering": { "flagged": [ { "item": "Client-facing portal at launch", "why": "No client has asked for self-serve status; email/upload-link delivery is sufficient at pilot scale.", "simpler": "Defer to year 1, gated on client demand signal." }, { "item": "Vector search / embeddings", "why": "Data volume at launch doesn't justify it; structured retrieval suffices.", "simpler": "Structured per-client and per-element lookup." }, { "item": "Microservices per bounded context", "why": "Premature operational complexity for a founder-operated launch.", "simpler": "Modular monolith with enforced module boundaries." } ] }, "risks": [ { "risk": "case portal developer bundles Completeness 'free' with a developer document follow-up flow", "likelihood": "medium-high", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Portal-agnostic positioning; redelivery/follow-up as the human moat", "detection": "Yardi or a competing case portal module adds follow-up/Delivery features", "owner": "owner", "escalation": "Analyst -> Senior Analyst -> Owner -> Counsel", "fallback": "Portal-agnostic positioning; redelivery/follow-up as the human moat", "category": "business" }, { "risk": "Scan-to-desk conversion underperforms", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "severe", "mitigation": "Pilot gate at 25%; alternative packaging tested in cohort 2", "detection": "Pilot cohort conversion below 25%", "owner": "owner", "escalation": "Analyst -> Senior Analyst -> Owner -> Counsel", "fallback": "Pilot gate at 25%; alternative packaging tested in cohort 2", "category": "business" }, { "risk": "False-positive eligibility finding gap sent to a developer", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "100% analyst approval; evidence-link requirement; developer document follow-up note-not-demand language", "detection": "Developer disputes an developer document follow-up note as unfounded", "owner": "legal", "escalation": "Analyst -> Senior Analyst -> Owner -> Counsel", "fallback": "100% analyst approval; evidence-link requirement; developer document follow-up note-not-demand language", "category": "business" } ], "rules": [ "No cross-module database table sharing", "No model call computes final money math", "No public claim before owner-action facts close" ], "audit": { "product_fit": 4, "simplicity": 4, "security": 4, "reliability": 4, "scalability": 3, "maintainability": 4, "performance": 4, "cost": 4, "compliance": 3, "dx": 4, "ops_burden": 4, "extensibility": 4, "team_suitability": 4, "time_to_market": 4, "recommendation": { "verdict": "conditional-go", "stack": "Node/TypeScript + Postgres + single frontier-model provider", "style": "modular monolith", "database": "Postgres with row-level developer security", "hosting": "Single-region, multi-AZ", "auth": "SSO + MFA for analysts", "ai_approach": "Scripted extraction/matching/drafting pipeline with analyst gates", "integrations": "contract & fee statement set ingestion, developer policy document intake, Buildium/contract & fee statement posting export", "build_first": [ "Intake & Normalization", "Exit-Path Matching & Evidence" ], "revisit_later": [ "Client-facing portal", "Public API" ], "avoid": [ "Microservices", "Vector search at this scale" ], "biggest_risks": [ "Analyst bottleneck", "A developer-facing claim proves incorrect" ], "top_10_rules": [ "No cross-module database table sharing", "No model call computes final money math", "No public claim before owner-action facts close", "Deterministic code owns all money math", "Analyst gate on every client- or developer-facing output" ], "first_10_steps": [ "Confirm the named licensed specialist + engagement letter on file", "Populate owner-action Case with entity, jurisdiction, contact inbox, privacy inbox", "Open pilot-cohort intake (cap 10) with explicit pricing conversation", "Write ICP + kill/pivot criteria in the plan file", "Stand up the evidence-linked intake -> match -> analyst signoff loop", "Wire append-only audit log + hash-chained snapshots", "Add row-level auth + developer-scoped retrieval indices", "Instrument scan-request, case-delivery, and analyst-signoff events", "Publish the microsite with FAQPage schema only and noindex until owner-facts close", "Schedule the Day-90 kill/pivot review with executive sponsor" ] } } }, "design": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "archetypes": [ "Case / Completeness Desk", "back-office trust interface" ], "user_mindset": { "goals": "Find out fast whether developers are shipping incomplete developer policy document data, without operating new software", "session_length": "Short, task-focused (scan intake, monthly case review)", "confidence": "Numerate, skeptical of unproven claims — wants evidence, not a dashboard", "interface_needs": "Clear evidence chain from developer policy document line to Case to signature" }, "posture": [ "calm", "numerate", "institutional-but-warm" ], "density": "compact", "trust_level": { "tier": "high", "sensitive_domains": [ "Timeshare owner financial data", "developer dispute data" ], "implications": [ "Every dollar figure must show its source", "No fabricated proof; honest placeholder slots until real cycles ship" ] }, "differentiation": { "avoid": [ "Proptech-startup gradient look", "Stock apartment-keys / handshake imagery", "Insurtech teal clones of sibling desks" ], "strategy": "A fee statement-desk aesthetic — deep indigo/navy against clean white with a rose 'deadline' accent and a countdown motif — numerate and calm, not consumer-app playful." }, "territories": [ { "name": "Timeshare contract Desk", "color_mood": "deep indigo/navy + clean white + rose deadline accent", "typography": "Serif numerals, sans body", "density": "compact", "component_feel": "fee statement-like, artifact-shaped cards with a countdown panel", "motion": "minimal, calm", "fits": "Timeshare contract/back-office trust interfaces with a hard clock", "risks": "Navy can read formal; kept warm with generous spacing and plain language" }, { "name": "Filing Desk", "color_mood": "similar palette family used elsewhere in the caseload", "typography": "Serif display", "density": "compact", "component_feel": "filing-tab metaphor", "motion": "minimal", "fits": "Deadline-driven filing businesses", "risks": "Wrong metaphor here — no single filing deadline exists in this business" }, { "name": "Completeness Console", "color_mood": "cooler blue-gray, more software-dashboard feeling", "typography": "Sans-only", "density": "dense", "component_feel": "dashboard-like", "motion": "minimal", "fits": "A future client-facing portal, not the launch microsite", "risks": "Reads too much like software the client has to operate — against the done-for-you positioning" } ], "chosen_territory": "Timeshare contract Desk", "chosen_rationale": "The Exit Path Report is the deliverable; a calm indigo timeshare contract-desk metaphor with a rose deadline accent keeps the case clock front and center and stays visually distinct from sibling desks.", "prioritized_components": [ { "name": "Hero with cycle-status panel", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" }, { "name": "Stat strip (real, sourced figures)", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" }, { "name": "Deliverable cards", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" }, { "name": "Pricing tiers with guarantee callout", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" }, { "name": "Honest placeholder proof slots", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" }, { "name": "FAQ", "why": "Core to the conversion path from stat proof to pricing trust to CTA" } ], "tokens": { "brand": "224 64% 33%", "brand-fg": "216 33% 97%", "surface": "0 0% 100%", "ink": "222 30% 14%", "muted": "220 13% 40%", "accent": "346 77% 45%" }, "type": { "display": "Iowan Old Style (system serif stack)", "body": "system-ui", "fonts_url": "" }, "signature": { "motif": "An unlinked contract document resolving into a eligibility finding line linked to its developer policy document, over a intake→case-timeline tracker.", "render": "CSS-only shapes/borders, no imagery (120KB budget)" }, "patterns": [ { "name": "Card-based deliverable grid", "description": "See site/index.html implementation" }, { "name": "Stepped how-it-works numerals", "description": "See site/index.html implementation" }, { "name": "Dashed placeholder proof slots", "description": "See site/index.html implementation" } ], "states": [ "matched (state-ok)", "at-risk / late on the case clock (state-risk)", "pending analyst or specialist approval (state-pending)", "blocked / missing evidence (state-blocked)" ], "uniqueness_audit": { "app_specific_decisions": [ "Case-teal + amber palette distinct from the caseload's other palettes", "The exit requestFile-to-Case visual motif specific to this business's workflow" ], "cliches_avoided": [ "No generic insurtech gradient hero", "No stock handshake/office imagery" ], "scale_notes": "Palette and motif chosen to be visually distinct from sibling businesses in the same multi-developer site." }, "localization": [ "en-US only at launch" ] }, "seo": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "archetype": "honest-authority, pay-on-performance consumer-trust site", "archetype_impact": "Search fit is a consumer-trust authority site owning 'how to get out of my timeshare legally' and 'is [exit company] a scam' — evergreen educational depth on developer-specific exit paths and FTC enforcement history, not deadline-driven content.", "authority_dna": { "site_archetype": "honest-authority, pay-on-performance consumer-trust site", "monetization_model": "Free Exit Path Diagnostic -> paid, escrow-protected case management (milestone fee on confirmed termination). Not ad revenue; not affiliate; never a large upfront fee.", "main_search_intents": [ "informational", "commercial" ], "topical_authority_opportunity": "Own the 'legitimate timeshare exit' and 'timeshare exit scam-check' topic space with developer-by-developer certified-exit explainers and FTC-case education.", "local_seo_opportunity": "Not justified: buyers search by problem/case portal, not by city.", "global_national_opportunity": "National (US-first); state the launch states timeshare contract regulation varies but the core service is not state-gated.", "easiest_ranking_path": "Long-tail, developer-specific and spec-specific queries (\"Independent exit consultant workflows direct bill Completeness\", \"why is my developer policy document short\") where the SERP is dominated by developer blog posts, not buyer-first guides.", "hardest_ranking_path": "Head terms like \"the launch states timeshare exit timeshare contract software\" — dominated by aged SaaS developer domains (AppFolio, Boutique exit attorney, Core timeshare exit cases).", "trust_credibility_requirements": [ "Named human analyst with role + credentials", "Developer/developer policy document citations on every claim", "Last-reviewed date on regulatory/compliance pages", "Direct links to primary trade-press sources, not aggregators" ], "ymyl": true, "expert_review_needed": true, "site_structure": "Authority hub + narrow high-intent service page + linkable evidence assets. Not a directory. Not a marketplace.", "seo_moat": "Always-current per-building-type and per-element how-to pages with real anonymized teardown evidence, refreshed as the parser library grows." }, "search_market": { "primary_markets": [ "the launch states timeshare exit timeshare exit case completeness service", "US timeshare exit case management Delivery", "Exit Path Diagnostic" ], "secondary_markets": [ "developer eligibility finding dispute resolution", "specialist caseload M&A contract-file diligence", "contract & fee statement timeshare exit case completeness how-to" ], "low_competition_subtopics": [ "developer-specific developer policy document quirks", "deeded-week vs points-based missing-docs risk", "Independent exit consultant workflows/Boutique exit attorney direct bill Completeness how-to" ], "high_commercial_intent": [ "done-for-you timeshare exit case completeness service", "outsource the launch states timeshare exit timeshare exit case completeness", "Exit case redelivery service for the launch states timeshare exit timeshare owners" ], "informational": [ "what is US timeshare exit case completeness", "how to complete the launch states timeshare exit contract-file developer policy documents", "why is my developer policy document short" ], "local_intent": [], "transactional": [ "Exit Path Diagnostic pricing", "book a timeshare exit case completeness consultation" ], "comparison": [ "timeshare exit case completeness service vs software", "DeedBack Clear vs AppFolio timeshare exit cases vs Independent exit consultant" ], "problem_solution": [ "developer rejected my contract-file what to do", "developer eligibility finding dispute resolution" ], "near_me": [], "long_tail": [ "Independent exit consultant workflows US timeshare exit case completeness", "as-earned contract-file redelivery explained", "AppFolio timeshare exit case completeness how-to" ], "questions": [ "what records does a timeshare exit case completeness need?", "who reviews a Exit Path Diagnostic?", "how long does timeshare exit case completeness take?" ], "emerging": [ "AI-assisted developer policy document extraction", "automated developer document follow-up note drafting" ], "seasonal": [ "tax-season contract & fee statement set cleanup", "specialist caseload M&A diligence season contract-file verification" ], "underserved_serps": [ "developer-specific developer policy document quirks", "developer eligibility finding dispute resolution" ], "weak_serps": [ "timeshare exit case completeness self-check", "timeshare exit case completeness checklist" ], "forum_dominated_serps": [ "why is my developer policy document short", "developer redelivery explained" ], "winnable_authoritative_serps": [ "US timeshare exit case completeness definitive guide", "Exit Path Diagnostic evidence requirements" ], "avoid_initially": [ "the launch states timeshare exit timeshare contract software", "best timeshare contract tracking tools" ], "easy_wins": [ "developer-specific developer policy document quirks", "timeshare exit case completeness checklist", "developer eligibility finding dispute anatomy" ], "moderate": [ "US timeshare exit case completeness definitive guide", "specialist caseload M&A contract-file diligence" ], "long_term_plays": [ "the launch states timeshare exit timeshare contract software comparison", "caseload-level multi-Timeshare owner Completeness" ], "do_not_pursue": [ "generic \"how to start a timeshare contract-ops business\" content", "celebrity or trend-jacking posts", "AI-generated listicles" ] }, "keyword_clusters": [ { "primary": "US timeshare exit case completeness service", "related": [ "done-for-you timeshare exit case completeness", "outsource timeshare exit case completeness" ], "intent": "commercial", "user_problem": "Timeshare owner suspects developer rejection and needs a done-for-you fix", "funnel": "BOFU", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "high", "content_effort": "medium", "serp_weakness": "Dominated by enterprise SaaS developer pages, not small-Timeshare owner-focused content", "local_relevance": "low", "global_relevance": "high", "suggested_page_type": "Pillar / service page", "reason": "High buyer intent + weak SERP for our segment", "priority_score": 17, "priority": "P0", "bucket": "easy-win" }, { "primary": "Exit Path Diagnostic", "related": [ "timeshare exit case completeness self-check", "how much contract-file am I missing" ], "intent": "commercial", "user_problem": "Wants a low-commitment diagnostic before a full engagement", "funnel": "TOFU", "business_value": "high", "ranking_difficulty": "low", "conversion_potential": "high", "content_effort": "low", "serp_weakness": "No existing competitor owns this exact term", "local_relevance": "low", "global_relevance": "high", "suggested_page_type": "Lead-magnet / calculator page", "reason": "Own a branded-term wedge outright", "priority_score": 16, "priority": "P0", "bucket": "easy-win" }, { "primary": "why is my the launch states timeshare exit developer policy document short", "related": [ "developer policy document missing", "developer eligibility finding dispute" ], "intent": "informational", "user_problem": "Immediate confusion moment after a light developer policy document", "funnel": "TOFU", "business_value": "medium", "ranking_difficulty": "low", "conversion_potential": "medium", "content_effort": "low", "serp_weakness": "Forum-dominated, thin", "local_relevance": "low", "global_relevance": "high", "suggested_page_type": "How-to / FAQ page", "reason": "Easy win + strong lead-magnet fit", "priority_score": 14, "priority": "P0", "bucket": "easy-win" } ], "topical_authority_map": { "core_topics": [ "Direct-bill timeshare exit case completeness — definitive guide", "Building-type quirk & eligibility finding classification library", "developer eligibility finding dispute resolution" ], "pillars": [ { "name": "Direct-bill timeshare exit case completeness — definitive guide", "core_intent": "informational", "audience": "Timeshare owners and ops managers", "conversion_goal": "Self-check / scan request", "supporting_pages": [ "What a redelivery should look like on your Case", "As-earned vs annualized missing-docs risk", "developer policy document formats explained" ], "internal_links": [ "/", "/resources/self-check" ], "schema": [ "Article", "BreadcrumbList", "FAQPage (where genuine)" ], "evidence_needed": [ "Named analyst", "Primary-source citations", "Worked example" ], "local_variants": [], "national_variants": [ "US-national (default)" ] }, { "name": "Exit Path Diagnostic evidence & trust", "core_intent": "commercial", "audience": "Timeshare owners", "conversion_goal": "Book a scan", "supporting_pages": [ "Anatomy of a Exit Path Diagnostic", "One developer, 12 months, $X missing" ], "internal_links": [ "/#diagnostic", "/resources/evidence" ], "schema": [ "Article", "FAQPage", "BreadcrumbList" ], "evidence_needed": [ "Worked evidence artifact", "Analyst credential" ], "local_variants": [], "national_variants": [ "US-national" ] } ], "supporting_page_types": [ "definition / glossary", "how-to workflow", "edge-case handling", "worked example", "FAQ", "comparison (only when honest)", "evidence artifact / template" ] }, "site_architecture": { "homepage_strategy": "Single-page conversion-focused microsite; deep content lives in a future /resources hub", "main_nav": [ "Pricing", "FAQ", "Operating blueprint" ], "footer_nav": [ "Compliance", "Operating blueprint" ], "hubs": [ { "name": "Resources hub", "purpose": "House long-form authority content", "url": "/resources (future)" } ], "url_patterns": [ "/timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk/" ], "avoid_url_patterns": [ "Thin per-element programmatic pages with no unique evidence" ] }, "global_national": { "national_clusters": [ "Direct-bill timeshare exit case completeness" ], "linkable_assets": [ "timeshare exit case completeness self-check calculator" ], "original_research_ideas": [ "Aggregate pilot-cohort missing-docs risk statistics once cohort completes" ], "international_needed": false, "international_notes": "US-only residential timeshare exit regulation; no international expansion in scope" }, "local_seo": { "justified": false, "reason": "Buyers search by problem/case portal, not location", "gbp_categories_primary": [], "gbp_categories_secondary": [], "location_page_rules": [], "citations": [], "review_strategy": "No fabricated reviews; real testimonials only after pilot cohort completes with permission", "local_schema": [] }, "programmatic": { "recommended": false, "reason": "No large structured dataset justifies programmatic pages at launch", "rules": [], "per_page_requirements": [], "quality_gates": [] }, "page_templates": [ { "page_type": "Pillar/service page", "purpose": "Convert a qualified visitor into a scan request", "target_intent": "commercial", "url_pattern": "/timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk/", "title_pattern": "{Brand} — {outcome} for {audience}", "meta_description_pattern": "{Brand} for {audience}. {outcome} — {price/SLA}.", "h1_pattern": "{Outcome-led headline}", "outline": [ "Hero", "Stat strip", "Pain", "Deliverables", "How it works", "Pricing", "Proof", "FAQ", "Compliance" ], "above_the_fold": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "internal_links": [ "Operating blueprint dossier" ], "schema": [ "FAQPage", "Service" ], "cta_strategy": "Single primary CTA (scan request), secondary deep-links only", "conversion_elements": [ "Guarantee beside pricing", "Honest placeholder proof" ], "trust_elements": [ "Compliance section", "Named analyst (pending owner action)" ], "faq_opportunities": [ "Objection-derived FAQ" ], "media": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "quality_requirements": [ "No banned phrases", "Contrast-checked palette" ], "anti_thin_rules": [ "Every claim sourced or explicitly placeholdered" ] } ], "on_page_rules": { "title_tag": "Primary keyword + brand, under 60 chars", "meta_description": "Under 155 chars, states the outcome", "headings": "One H1, ordered H2/H3", "intro": "Answer the query in the first 2 sentences", "snippet_targeting": "Direct-answer paragraphs above the fold", "tables_lists": "Used for pricing and comparison content only", "images": "None required at launch (text-first authority content)", "internal_links": "Link every supporting page back to the pillar", "external_citations": "Link primary trade-press/developer sources by name", "author_attribution": "Named analyst bio on YMYL pages", "freshness": "Quarterly re-verification of dollar figures and developer claims", "cta_placement": "End of every page + inline after the core answer", "mobile": "Mobile-first responsive layout", "avoid": [ "Keyword stuffing", "Thin AI-generated filler" ] }, "entity_seo": { "main_entities": [ "DeedBack Clear", "Exit Path Report", "Exit Path Diagnostic" ], "related_entities": [ "Boutique exit attorney", "Independent exit consultant", "Frontdesk AI", "AppFolio", "Buildium", "Yardi" ], "people": [ "Named licensed specialist (pending owner action)" ], "orgs": [ "NYS HCR", "the launch states Rent Guidelines Board" ], "tools": [ "Boutique exit attorney", "Independent exit consultant", "Frontdesk AI", "AppFolio", "Buildium" ], "regulations": [ "US the applicable state timeshare statute", "US the applicable state timeshare statute / the developer certified-exit policy update (eff. Nov 15, 2025)" ], "problems": [ "timeshare contract loss", "late or incomplete exit path report" ], "solutions": [ "Exit Path Report", "Exit Path Diagnostic" ], "processes": [ "Intake", "Evidence matching", "Licensed-specialist review", "Delivery" ], "alternatives": [ "Enterprise SaaS", "BPO services", "Specialist timeshare contract-ops firms" ], "synonyms": [ "timeshare exit case", "documented eligibility finding statement", "case-cycle exit" ] }, "schema_strategy": [ { "type": "FAQPage", "where": "Homepage FAQ section", "required_fields": [ "mainEntity", "acceptedAnswer" ], "caution": "Only genuine, answered questions — no fabricated Q&A" }, { "type": "Service", "where": "Homepage, with a real-entity Organization provider", "required_fields": [ "provider", "areaServed", "serviceType" ], "caution": "No review/rating/aggregateRating" } ], "internal_linking": { "pillar_to_cluster": "Every pillar links to its supporting pages", "cluster_to_pillar": "Every supporting page links back to its pillar", "cluster_to_cluster": "Cross-linked where the buyer journey naturally continues", "service_to_location": "N/A (no location pages)", "faq_to_commercial": "FAQ answers link to the pricing section", "breadcrumbs": "Present on all supporting content pages", "anchor_text_rules": [ "Descriptive, not \"click here\"" ] }, "technical_seo": { "crawlability": "noindex at launch until owner-action facts close", "indexability": "Enabled post-launch review", "sitemaps": "Generated once indexable", "robots": "noindex,nofollow at launch", "canonicals": "Self-canonical", "pagination": "N/A", "faceted_nav": "N/A", "duplicate_control": "Single canonical URL per page", "redirects": "N/A at launch", "core_web_vitals": "LCP ≤2.5s, INP ≤200ms, CLS ≤0.1 budget enforced", "mobile": "Mobile-first responsive", "accessibility": "WCAG 2.2 AA", "js_seo": "Minimal JS, server-renderable content", "rendering": "Static self-contained HTML", "gsc_setup": "Pending owner action", "analytics_setup": "Pending owner action", "rank_tracking": "Pending owner action" }, "eeat": { "author_bios": "Named analyst bio pending owner action", "expert_reviewers": "Named licensed specialist", "editorial_policy": "Facts cited to primary/trade-press sources; developer-sponsored claims labeled", "fact_checking": "Quarterly re-verification cadence", "credentials": [ "Licensed specialist credentials — pending owner action" ], "citations": "Every load-bearing statistic cited by source name", "first_hand_proof": [ "Anonymized pilot-cohort teardowns once available" ], "update_cadence": "Quarterly", "monetization_disclosure": "Service pricing disclosed on the pricing section itself", "ymyl_notes": "Treated as YMYL due to financial-advice-adjacent content; no coverage/legal/tax advice given" }, "ai_search": { "principles": [ "Answer the exact question asked, directly and first", "Cite named sources, not vague claims" ], "tactics": [ "FAQ schema on genuine FAQs", "Definitive per-topic guides answer engines can cite" ], "do_not": [ "Fabricate statistics", "Claim certifications not held" ] }, "conversion": { "primary_cta": "Start a free Exit Path Diagnostic", "secondary_cta": "See how a case is built", "lead_magnets": [ "Exit Path Diagnostic (the exit request-file triage)", "US case-timeline Exit case Checklist PDF" ], "trust_elements": [ "Guarantee + out-clause beside pricing", "Compliance section with licensing boundary" ], "per_page_paths": [ { "path": "Homepage -> scan request", "page_type": "pillar" } ], "tracking": "data-event taxonomy per DESIGN-STANDARD §4" }, "link_earning": { "digital_pr_ideas": [ "Aggregate anonymized pilot-cohort missing-docs risk statistics as original research" ], "original_research": [ "Average missing-docs risk by trade/section mix (post-pilot)" ], "directories": [ "State Adeveloper/court/ABC association developer resource contract document/developer documents" ], "expert_contributions": [ "Guest posts on US property-management community blogs" ], "partnerships": [ "CPA/bookkeeper referral partners" ], "avoid": [ "Paid link schemes", "Low-quality directory submissions" ] }, "roadmap_90d": [ { "phase": "Launch", "goal": "Publish core microsite", "pages": [ "Homepage" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "US timeshare exit case completeness service" ], "required_assets": [ "Self-check lead magnet" ], "internal_links": [], "difficulty": "low", "business_value": "high", "conversion_goal": "Scan requests", "why_first": "Foundation for every other page" } ], "roadmap_12m": [ { "phase": "Authority hub", "goal": "Build /resources content cluster", "pages": [ "Definitive guide", "Per-contract & fee statement how-tos" ], "keywords_targeted": [ "developer-specific developer policy document quirks" ], "required_assets": [ "Anonymized pilot-cohort statistics" ], "internal_links": [ "Homepage" ], "difficulty": "medium", "business_value": "medium", "conversion_goal": "Organic scan requests", "why_first": "Compounding organic channel per the GTM kit" } ], "priority_pages": [ { "rank": 1, "page_title": "DeedBack Clear homepage", "slug": "/timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk/", "page_type": "pillar/service", "primary_keyword": "US timeshare exit case completeness service", "secondary_keywords": [ "Exit Path Diagnostic" ], "intent": "commercial", "funnel": "BOFU", "business_value": "high", "difficulty": "medium", "conversion_potential": "high", "cta": "Start a free Exit Path Diagnostic", "schema": [ "FAQPage", "Service" ], "internal_links": [ "/resources (future)" ], "required_proof": [ "[PLACEHOLDER] owner to complete" ], "why_opportunity": "Owns the branded wedge term outright", "production_priority": "P0", "scope": "Launch" } ], "competitor_gaps": { "typical_competitor_types": [ "Enterprise SaaS developer blogs", "BPO service pages", "Generic timeshare contract-ops content" ], "common_weaknesses": [ "Written for large brokers, not the $500K-$5M Timeshare owner", "No developer-specific evidence" ], "how_to_beat_them": [ "Publish small-client-specific, developer-specific, evidence-first content" ] }, "metrics": { "weekly": [ "Scan requests", "Self-check completions" ], "monthly": [ "Organic scan requests", "Keyword ranking movement on P0 terms" ], "quarterly": [ "Fresh-verification pass on all cited statistics" ], "annual": [ "Full content-cluster audit" ] }, "risks": [ { "risk": "YMYL scrutiny on financial-outcome claims without named-analyst attribution", "applies": true, "mitigation": "Named analyst attribution and quarterly re-verification" }, { "risk": "Competitor content targeting the same small-Timeshare owner segment", "applies": true, "mitigation": "Named analyst attribution and quarterly re-verification" } ], "first_20_pages": [ "Homepage", "timeshare exit case completeness self-check", "Developer The exit requestFile Survival Kit", "Direct-bill Completeness definitive guide" ], "first_10_tech_fixes": [ "Confirm noindex removed only after owner-action facts close", "Verify FAQ schema validates" ], "first_10_authority_actions": [ "Publish first 3 educational posts", "Launch the self-check lead magnet", "Pitch first association webinar" ], "final_recommendation": "Launch noindexed until owner-action facts (entity, analyst identity, trademark clearance) close; then pursue a narrow, evidence-first authority strategy targeting the $500K-$5M Timeshare owner segment the enterprise SEO content ignores.", "disclaimers": [ "Not legal advice; not a law firm; not a legal opinion on any exit case.", "Documentation-preparation service; the owner/timeshare owner remains the engagement principal under the applicable state timeshare statute.", "Statutory references provided for context; figures attributed to named public sources; proof metrics are placeholders until pilot cases ship." ] }, "microsite": { "category": "Consumer / regulated contract services — compliant timeshare exit & deed-back case management", "shortTitle": "DeedBack Clear", "audience": "U.S. timeshare owners (deeded-week or points-based), 45+, owned 5+ years, current or near-current on maintenance fees, seeking a legitimate exit — and adult children managing an aging parent's contract", "problem": "A timeshare owner who wants out has three bad options: a resale market that pays ~10% or less of what they paid, an exit-company market the FTC has hit with $230M+ in judgments and settlements since 2022 for taking large fees upfront and failing to deliver, or an hourly attorney with a big retainer. The legitimate path — a developer-accepted deed-back or certified exit — is real but requires knowing that specific developer's process and following it relentlessly for weeks.", "offer": "With DeedBack Clear, the owner sends their contract and latest maintenance-fee statement and gets a licensed-specialist-signed Exit Path Report: whether a legitimate exit exists for their specific developer, which mechanism, roughly how long, and what it costs — before any money changes hands. If a path exists, the case is run for them and the milestone fee is released from independent escrow only when the developer confirms the termination in writing.", "faq": [ { "q": "Isn't every 'timeshare exit' company a scam?", "a": "No — but the fraud is common enough that caution is smart. The pattern the FTC repeatedly sanctions is a large fee collected upfront, before anyone confirms a real exit exists, often with a 'guaranteed exit' promise. DeedBack Clear is the structural opposite: no large upfront fee, funds held by an independent licensed escrow agent, and a licensed specialist on every determination." }, { "q": "Can you guarantee I'll get out?", "a": "No, and anyone who guarantees an exit before reviewing your contract is showing you a red flag. What we guarantee is the fee structure: you owe nothing before a legitimate path is confirmed for your specific contract, and the milestone fee is owed only if your developer confirms your exit in writing." }, { "q": "Is this legal advice?", "a": "No. DeedBack Clear is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Legal determinations and signatures on your case are made by a licensed attorney or state-registered specialist." }, { "q": "Who holds my money?", "a": "An independent, licensed third-party escrow agent — not DeedBack Clear. The agent's identity and the exact release condition are named in your engagement agreement before you sign." }, { "q": "Which states do you operate in?", "a": "We launch only where a clear registration/bonding path exists — Florida, Texas, and Virginia first — and add states only after registration is confirmed. Our status is available on request." } ], "process": [ { "title": "Send your contract file", "body": "Upload your contract/deed, latest maintenance-fee statement, and (if points-based) your points balance into one secure link. No mega-form." }, { "title": "We identify your developer's real exit path", "body": "The engine matches your contract against the Exit Path Library; a licensed specialist reviews and signs your Exit Path Report before it reaches you." }, { "title": "If a path exists, your deposit goes into independent escrow", "body": "Only then does a case open. Your funds sit with a licensed third-party escrow agent — never with DeedBack Clear." }, { "title": "We run the correspondence and follow-up", "body": "Specialist-signed letters go out; we track every developer response and chase every deadline until they answer." }, { "title": "Confirmed — then the fee releases", "body": "We verify the developer's written termination, escrow releases the milestone fee, and your final termination package is delivered." } ], "northStarCta": { "label": "Start your free Exit Path Diagnostic", "href": "#diagnostic", "secondary_label": "See how a case works", "secondary_href": "#how" }, "trust": { "standards": [ "Case-management and documentation service — not a law firm, not legal advice. Legal determinations and signatures are made by a licensed attorney or state-registered specialist.", "Not affiliated with any timeshare developer, resort, or vacation club. The owner may contact the developer directly at any time.", "Outcome-based pricing — a refundable deposit held in independent escrow, a flat milestone fee released only on confirmed termination. Never a large upfront fee, never hourly, never a percentage of anything." ], "response_time": "Exit Path Report delivered within ~5 business days of a complete intake; 48–72h expedited-diagnostic rider available.", "data_handling": "Contracts, deeds, and maintenance-fee statements are treated as confidential PII: collected minimally, stored encrypted, access limited to the assigned specialist and case operator, never sold or shared, with an access audit trail and a stated retention/deletion policy." }, "hook": "A free Exit Path Diagnostic tells you honestly whether a legitimate exit exists for your specific developer — before you pay anyone anything.", "sub_headline": "You send your contract and latest maintenance-fee statement; a licensed specialist reviews your Exit Path Report before it reaches you, and you owe nothing until your developer confirms your exit in writing.", "dream_outcome": "A confirmed, documented termination: the developer's written confirmation that you hold no further ownership interest or maintenance-fee obligation.", "specific_pains": [ "You realize the resale market pays ~10% of what you paid, so 'just sell it' is not real advice.", "You got a 'guaranteed exit' cold call and can't tell whether it's a scam before paying.", "You started an exit yourself and the developer correspondence stalled for months.", "Your fee was demanded upfront, before anyone confirmed a legitimate exit even exists for your contract.", "You're managing an aging parent's timeshare and worry they'll be targeted by the schemes the FTC keeps suing." ], "cost_of_inaction": "Do nothing and the maintenance fees keep compounding on an asset worth ~10% of what you paid; hire the wrong operator and you join the consumers the FTC's cases describe — thousands of dollars paid upfront to a scheme aimed at older owners, with a $140M judgment entered in April 2026 against a single operator.", "mechanism": { "name": "The DeedBack Clear case-cycle engine", "steps": [ { "title": "Intake: send your contract file", "body": "Upload the contract/deed, latest maintenance-fee statement, and points balance; structured questions capture your goal and constraints." }, { "title": "Match: find the developer's accepted path", "body": "The engine identifies the developer and queries the Exit Path Library for the accepted deed-back / certified-exit path and eligibility conditions." }, { "title": "Determine: licensed-specialist sign-off", "body": "A licensed specialist reviews the eligibility determination and signs the Exit Path Report before it is sent — free, no obligation." }, { "title": "Run: correspondence + follow-up", "body": "Specialist-signed developer/HOA correspondence goes out; the engine flags stalls and a case operator keeps the cadence moving." }, { "title": "Confirm & release", "body": "On verified written termination, escrow releases the milestone fee and the final termination package is delivered." } ] }, "offer_stack": [ { "item": "Exit Path Report", "note": "Licensed-specialist-signed: does a legitimate path exist, which mechanism, timeline, and cost — free." }, { "item": "Developer/HOA correspondence", "note": "Drafted by the engine, signed by a licensed specialist, sent and tracked by a case operator." }, { "item": "Follow-up cadence", "note": "AI-flagged, human-executed follow-ups so your case never goes silent for weeks." }, { "item": "Independent escrow", "note": "Deposit and milestone fee held by a licensed third-party escrow agent with a written release condition." }, { "item": "Confirmed-termination package", "note": "The developer's written confirmation that your contract is fully terminated — for your HOA, estate, or family." } ], "guarantee": "You pay the milestone fee only if your developer confirms your exit in writing. Your deposit sits with an independent, licensed escrow agent and is refunded if no legitimate path is confirmed. We never charge a large upfront fee, never bill hourly, and never promise a guaranteed exit.", "urgency": "There is no artificial countdown here. The honest urgency is that maintenance fees compound every year you wait, and the scam-heavy market keeps targeting owners who haven't yet found a legitimate path.", "objections": [ { "q": "How are you different from the exit companies the FTC sued?", "a": "Those operators collected large fees upfront and kept them regardless of outcome. We collect nothing large upfront, hold funds in independent escrow, and release the milestone fee only on confirmed termination — the exact fact pattern the FTC sanctions is designed out of our model." }, { "q": "Isn't this unauthorized practice of law?", "a": "No. The engine drafts documents; a licensed attorney or state-registered specialist makes the legal determination and signs. Litigation and bankruptcy cases are referred out, never handled in-house." }, { "q": "Why should I trust 'escrow' — scammers claim that too?", "a": "Fair. That's why we use an independent, licensed third-party escrow agent, name the agent and the written release condition in your engagement agreement, and never imply escrow alone equals safety." } ], "who_this_is_not_for": [ "Owners in foreclosure or severe maintenance-fee default (a different, higher-risk legal posture — referred to appropriate counsel).", "Owners seeking to void the original sale as fraudulent (a litigation posture — referred to a litigating attorney).", "Non-U.S. timeshare contracts, or owners wanting a resale listing rather than a termination." ], "proof_pillars": [ { "title": "Escrow / pay-on-performance structure", "body": "No large upfront fee. Funds held by an independent, licensed third-party escrow agent and released only on the developer's written termination confirmation." }, { "title": "Licensed-specialist chokepoint", "body": "A licensed attorney or state-registered specialist signs every eligibility determination and every outbound legal correspondence, and approves every escrow release." }, { "title": "Honest 'no' outcomes", "body": "If no legitimate exit path exists for a contract, we say so plainly and refund the deposit — the opposite of the upfront-fee model the FTC has sanctioned." } ], "stakes_line": "The fraud in this category lives in the fee structure: pay a large fee upfront and the incentive to deliver disappears. DeedBack Clear collects its fee only on confirmed termination.", "deliverable": "Exit Path Report → confirmed termination", "unit_of_work": "case", "lexicon": { "regulator": "The FTC and state timeshare regulators (FL/TX/VA)", "regulator_full": "The Federal Trade Commission (which has obtained $230M+ in judgments/settlements against timeshare-exit operators since 2022) plus state timeshare-reseller registration/bonding regimes — Florida's Timeshare Act (Ch. 721), Texas's timeshare escrow surety bond (TREC), and Virginia's reseller registration (Va. Code §55.1-2244).", "statute": "State timeshare-reseller registration/bonding (FL Ch. 721 · TX TREC bond · VA §55.1-2244) plus FTC advance-fee principles", "statute_frame": "the intake-to-confirmation workflow where an owner pays nothing large upfront and the milestone fee releases only on confirmed termination", "persona": "Timeshare owner (or adult child with power of attorney)", "persona_moment": "You own a timeshare you can't sell for anything close to what you paid, the maintenance fees keep rising, and you've grown suspicious of every 'guaranteed exit' pitch.", "trigger_moment": "the owner searches 'how to get out of my timeshare legally' or 'is [exit company] a scam' and wants a straight answer", "enforcement_stakes": "the operator collects a large fee upfront and fails to deliver — the exact pattern behind the FTC's $140M April 2026 judgment aimed at elderly consumers", "retention": "the full record of every case: Exit Path Report, correspondence, escrow entries, and the final termination confirmation", "cta_verb": "Start your free Exit Path Diagnostic", "intake_checklist": [ "The timeshare contract or deed (all pages)", "The latest maintenance-fee statement", "Points balance screenshot, if the contract is points-based", "The developer/vacation-club name and the state of the timeshare", "Whether the owner is current, near-current, or delinquent on fees" ], "regulator_faqs": [ { "q": "Does DeedBack Clear contact my developer on my behalf?", "a": "A licensed specialist signs the correspondence and a case operator sends and tracks it — you approve the strategy, and you can contact your developer directly at any time." }, { "q": "Does DeedBack Clear decide the law on my exit?", "a": "A licensed attorney or state-registered specialist makes the eligibility determination and signs it. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice; litigation and bankruptcy are referred out." } ], "trust_standards_specific": [ "A licensed specialist signs every eligibility determination and every outbound legal correspondence before it is sent.", "We never take custody of your funds — an independent, licensed escrow agent holds the deposit and milestone fee — and we never price on a percentage of anything." ] }, "proof_angle": { "id": "confirmed-termination", "headline": "The milestone fee releases only on a verified, written developer confirmation of termination.", "lever": "DeedBack Clear stores every case's Exit Path Report, correspondence, escrow record, and the final termination confirmation, double-verified before any funds move.", "outcome_verb": "confirms", "outcome_frame": "the developer confirms the termination in writing and the escrowed milestone fee releases", "proof_promise": "Confirmed-termination rate and median case cycle time will be published here once pilot cases close." }, "indexable": true, "ubiquitousLanguage": { "audience": "U.S. timeshare owners (deeded-week or points-based), 45+, owned 5+ years, current or near-current on maintenance fees, seeking a legitimate exit — and adult children managing an aging parent's contract", "domain": "Compliant U.S. timeshare exit & deed-back case management", "deliverable": "Exit Path Report + licensed-specialist review → confirmed termination", "reviewer": "licensed specialist (attorney or state-registered specialist)", "record": "case file register", "unit_of_work": "case", "cta_primary": "Start your free Exit Path Diagnostic", "cta_secondary": "See how a case works", "regulator": "The FTC and state timeshare regulators", "regulator_full": "the launch states General Obligations Law the state timeshare statute (and the state timeshare statute for points-based ownerships), under the case-cycle exit-path determination", "statute": "FL Ch. 721 · TX TREC escrow surety bond · VA §55.1-2244", "trigger_moment": "owner wants a legitimate, verifiable exit and doesn't trust the paid options", "event_intake_started": "domain.diagnostic_requested", "event_conversation_requested": "domain.diagnostic_requested" } }, "evidence": [ { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e1", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Identity", "claim_or_finding": "Operating entity, state registrations/bonding, and independent escrow-agent relationship to be declared by owner before any public trust claim (working brand: DeedBack Clear).", "status": "pending-owner-action", "evidence": "Owner supplies entity, FL/TX/VA registration + bond status, and named escrow agent.", "verification_command": "Owner submits entity + per-state compliance case + escrow-agent agreement.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Confirm entity, registrations, bonding, and escrow agent before removing the launch noindex.", "severity": "high" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e2", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Regulatory", "claim_or_finding": "A federal court ordered over $140M (>$95M consumer redress + $45M civil penalty) against a timeshare-exit operator in April 2026 for deceptive upfront-fee practices aimed at elderly consumers.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "DOJ/FTC press releases (Square One / Christopher Carroll), April 2026.", "verification_command": "Re-fetch ftc.gov and justice.gov April 2026 press releases.", "fix_owner": "factory", "remediation": "Keep citation current; monitor for appeal or modification.", "severity": "low" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e3", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Regulatory", "claim_or_finding": "The FTC and Wisconsin AG obtained relief recovering ~$90M from a different upfront-fee timeshare-exit scheme (2022).", "status": "verified", "evidence": "FTC press release, November 2022.", "verification_command": "Re-fetch ftc.gov 2022 press release.", "fix_owner": "factory", "remediation": "Cite as the standard the business is built to avoid.", "severity": "low" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e4", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Market", "claim_or_finding": "More than 9 million U.S. households own a timeshare; typical resale value ~10% or less of original price; average maintenance fee ~$1,000/yr, can exceed $3,000, rising a few percent yearly.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "Consumer Reports citing ARDA; ARDA 2025 State of the Industry summary.", "verification_command": "Re-fetch Consumer Reports and ARDA 2025 summary.", "fix_owner": "factory", "remediation": "Refresh with ARDA's latest annual figures.", "severity": "low" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e5", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Regulatory", "claim_or_finding": "State timeshare-reseller/exit frameworks exist: TX escrow surety bond (TREC); VA reseller registration (§55.1-2244); FL Timeshare Act (Ch. 721); NJ, LA, NC statutes.", "status": "verified", "evidence": "TREC.gov; Va. Code §55.1-2244; FL Statutes Ch. 721; NJ Rev. Stat. §45:15-16.57; LREC; NC Ch. 93A Art. 4.", "verification_command": "Counsel confirms per-state registration/bonding before any case opens.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Hard gate: no case in a state until its registration/bonding is documented.", "severity": "high" }, { "id": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk-e6", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "area": "Proof", "claim_or_finding": "No client outcomes, testimonials, or case results exist yet; all proof slots are honest placeholders keyed to real future confirmed-termination events.", "status": "pending-owner-action", "evidence": "Landing page proof slots are dashed placeholders; no fabricated proof present.", "verification_command": "grep for testimonial/review schema returns none.", "fix_owner": "owner", "remediation": "Fill only with real, consented, anonymized outcomes after the first confirmed terminations.", "severity": "medium" } ], "seo_pages": { "id": "seo-timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "business_slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "route": "/timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "title": "DeedBack Clear — US case-cycle Exit Path Reports for timeshare owners", "description": "Done-for-you US timeshare-contract Exit Path Reports: eligibility finding lines mapped to contract document and developer document evidence, a case-timeline tracker, and a delivery-proof checklist — so your statement and refund clear the applicable state timeshare statute before you loses.", "canonical": "/timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "og_title": "DeedBack Clear — clear the US case-cycle timeshare contract clock", "og_description": "Exit Path Reports for the launch states timeshare owners, assembled inside the the applicable state timeshare statute case window and reviewed by a licensed specialist.", "schema_type": "FAQPage", "schema_status": "pending-owner-facts", "sitemap_include": false, "noindex": true }, "vertical_style": { "accent": "timeshare contract-navy", "signature": "Timeshare contract-fee statement desk with a case-timeline tracker chip and a matched/at-risk/pending/blocked status row.", "layout": "US timeshare exit case management completeness desk index", "anti": "Proptech gradient hero, stock apartment-keys or handshake imagery, teal clones of sibling desks." }, "canva": { "slug": "timeshare-exit-deedback-compliance-desk", "territory": "Timeshare contract Desk", "family": { "id": "ny-timeshare-exit-desk", "name": "the launch states residential timeshare exit case management", "motion": "calm" }, "tokens": { "brand": "224 64% 33%", "brand-fg": "216 33% 97%", "surface": "0 0% 100%", "ink": "222 30% 14%", "muted": "220 13% 40%", "accent": "346 77% 45%" }, "type": { "display": "Iowan Old Style", "body": "system-ui", "fonts_url": "" }, "scale": { "h1": "clamp(2.5rem, 5.5vw, 4.25rem)", "h2": "clamp(1.75rem, 3vw, 2.5rem)", "h3": "clamp(1.25rem, 2vw, 1.5rem)", "body": "clamp(1rem, 1.1vw, 1.125rem)", "small": "0.8125rem", "tracking_display": "-0.02em", "tracking_body": "-0.005em", "weight_display": 700, "weight_body": 450 }, "spacing": { "card_padding": "1.75rem", "card_radius": "0.35rem", "card_shadow": "0 0 0 1px hsl(var(--ink) / 0.08)", "section_gap": "clamp(3.5rem, 8vw, 6.5rem)", "hero_gap": "clamp(1.25rem, 2vw, 2rem)" }, "layout": { "hero": "split-primary", "card": "elevated-soft", "cta": "solid-brand", "archetype": "Case", "card_silhouette": "flat-outline", "button_geometry": "rounded" }, "background": { "hero_gradient": "radial-gradient(1100px 560px at 88% -12%, hsl(224 64% 33% / 0.10), transparent 60%)", "cta_gradient": "linear-gradient(135deg, hsl(224 64% 33%), hsl(346 77% 45%))", "section_wash": "linear-gradient(180deg, hsl(0 0% 100%) 0%, hsl(220 33% 99%) 100%)" }, "motif": "Exit-contract document-to-linked-developer-developer document over a case-timeline tracker cover art" }, "capabilities": { "marketing": "True", "portal": "False", "ops": "True", "chatbot": "False", "payments": "False" }, "generated_at": "2026-07-15T21:00:00Z", "checksum": "sha256:0d4030a62c4e99b9e2a3638fe3ac3e16f8ae07269b69f3a91a3b6021ae4a2482" }