Account dossiers — qualification

Record status

Record ID

field-guide:account-dossiers

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_urls

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Wick

Owner role

Not separately recorded

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Field guides — documentation — Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Qualification status

Result

NOT RUN

Disposition

HELD

Reviewer

Not recorded

Receipt

Not recorded

This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the docs_urls lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

Outcome definitions

Verified

All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect.

Failed

One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason.

Needs review

Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer.

Held

Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent.

The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only.

Proposed deterministic acceptance tests

Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded.

• Every documentation route has a distinct purpose and includes content that is not duplicated from the overview.
• The overview identifies the owner agent, related jobs, evidence boundary, lifecycle, and held external effects.
• A dossier can be created with an explicit owner, scope, review date, and canonical record reference.
• Each material claim has a source locator or is visibly marked as an interpretation, hypothesis, or unresolved question.
• The form supports provenance, revisions, conflicting evidence, recipient review, and a local decision state.
• The steps link World-post research, Outreach dossiers, Message drafts, Response triage, and Campaign chronology without claiming those jobs are connected web features.
• Incomplete or contradictory evidence produces a Held or Needs review state rather than a qualification claim.
• Draft messages remain drafts until a human reviews recipient, context, and final-send status.
• Deadlines include evidence cutoffs, review checkpoints, and follow-up workbacks.
• Accessibility is testable: headings are hierarchical, labels are explicit, status is conveyed by text as well as color, keyboard focus is visible, and forms expose validation errors next to their fields.
• Private, sensitive, and held records are excluded from public documentation routes and search results unless a visibility decision explicitly permits inclusion.
• No route or record claims provider connection, credential use, database authority, customer indexing, publication, deployment, or production operation.

Negative and held-state tests

• Treating a named related job or owner agent as proof of an implemented integration.
• Conflating observed source facts with inferred account characteristics.
• Using stale, conflicting, or unverifiable research in outreach personalization.
• Exposing private account information through public documentation routes or broad local search.
• Sending a message, changing an external campaign, or triaging a live response without human review.
• Creating unsupported qualification or prioritization claims from incomplete evidence.
• Assuming file references represent uploaded or protected assets when upload and protected storage are held.
• Creating hidden automation through recurrence or deadlines instead of explicit, reviewable to-dos.
• Using color alone to communicate lifecycle, review, privacy, or evidence state.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• This is a proposed field guide for preparing account dossiers.
• The guide uses source-labelled notes, provenance, revisions, deadlines, drafts, chronology, and human review as working concepts.
• The observed GuthHub and Notebook routes can be listed as local prototype or index surfaces according to the supplied route states.
• The supplied source record names Wick as owner and lists World-post research, Outreach dossiers, Message drafts, Response triage, and Campaign chronology as related jobs.

Still held

• That account dossiers are deployed or customer-indexed.
• That Wick has provider, credential, inbox, CRM, database, or campaign access.
• That related jobs are connected by a production workflow.
• That messages can be sent or responses can be received automatically.
• That an account has been qualified, contacted, approved, or placed in a live campaign.
• That any provider connection, publication, database authority, customer record, or production effect exists.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• source_record:field-guide:account-dossiers
• agents/index.html#wick
• source record: field-guide:account-dossiers
• Observed native contract: project_and_field_guide_collections
• Observed native contract: deadlines
• Observed native contract: records
• Observed native contract: pointguard
• App route: /app/notebook/field-guides/
• App route: /app/notebook/notes/
• App route: /app/notebook/files/
• App route: /app/notebook/to-dos/
• App route: /app/notebook/approvals/
• App route: /app/notebook/messages/
• App route: /app/notebook/projects/
• App route: /app/notebook/search/
• App route: /app/pointguard/