Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/contact-histories/qualification/ field guide / candidate # Contact histories โ€” qualification The distinct qualification record for Contact histories. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: field-guide:contact-histories **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 ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Field guides โ€” documentation]() โ€” 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. ### Lane-specific instrument aids No verified instrument is assigned to this qualification lane. ## 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 proposed guide URL has a distinct purpose and content outline; none is a doorway page or keyword-only variant. - The overview explains scope, record ownership, evidence states, held external effects, and known failure states. - A reader can create one contact-history record and one event using implementable fields without relying on an unverified provider connection. - Chronology output visibly separates observed facts, inference, gaps, conflicts, and next actions. - A duplicate event can be flagged and linked without destructive merge or loss of provenance. - A missing, conflicting, or malformed source produces a review state and preserved failure reason rather than silent omission. - Message drafting cannot be represented as external sending, and a response cannot be marked confirmed without source evidence. - Every follow-up has an explicit owner or an explicit unassigned state; deadlines and priority are inspectable. - The guide links each related job to a distinct next action and preserves shared canonical records rather than copying events. - The guide is accessible by keyboard, uses labelled fields, exposes status text without color-only meaning, and provides readable chronology order. - All pages and app links are labelled as proposed, indexed, or prototype according to the supplied contract; no page claims deployment, publication, customer indexing, provider connection, database authority, or qualification. ## Negative and held-state tests - Incomplete source access can be mistaken for a complete contact history. - Identity collisions can merge separate people or organizations. - Timezone, forwarded-message, and imported-file dates can produce false chronology. - Inference can be mistaken for observed fact. - Drafts can be mistaken for sent messages or provider-confirmed delivery. - A response category can be mistaken for a verified response. - Sensitive contact information may cross private and public visibility boundaries. - Duplicate local records can create contradictory campaign counts. - Deadlines may be treated as automation or external calendar writes despite held provider effects. - Native route names indicate bounded interfaces, not connected production features. ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence - This guide proposes a source-labelled method for organizing contact-history records. - The guide can document chronology, provenance, gaps, drafts, response states, and review receipts as bounded local records. - The supplied contract supports canonical IDs, provenance, revisions, lifecycle, links, attachments, and deadline-oriented to-do fields. - Related work can be linked to the named jobs: World-post research, Outreach dossiers, Message drafts, Response triage, and Campaign chronology. ### Still held - No claim that Wick or any provider is connected. - No claim that external inboxes, calendars, CRMs, databases, or customer records are retrieved or authoritative. - No claim that messages are sent, delivered, or responded to externally. - No claim that contact histories are complete, published, customer-indexed, qualified, or deployed. - No claim that a proposed chronology establishes identity, consent, relationship status, or campaign performance. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `source_record:field-guide:contact-histories` - `agents/index.html#wick` - `observed_native_contract.project_and_field_guide_collections` - `observed_native_contract.deadlines` - `observed_native_contract.records` - `observed_native_contract.pointguard` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/field-guides/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/notes/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/files/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/to-dos/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/messages/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/approvals/` - `app_routes:/app/notebook/search/` - `app_routes:/app/pointguard/`