The handover contract, specified

Five fields, handed to the person who inherits a conversation at the moment Fin stops. This page specifies them: what each field is for, what Fin already computes that fills it, what the receiving human does with it, and what happens when it is missing.

One of the five is something Fin already computes and cites. The other four are the proposal, and they say so here and on the card itself. Both replay pages render this contract from validated scenario data; no value on either page is authored in markup.

The five fields

In CONTRACT_FIELDS order, under the headings briefing.mjs gives them. Gate group 17 asserts this page against those two modules, so a field added to the schema and not to this document is a red build rather than a stale page.

What Fin tried

What it is for: Compressing what has already been attempted into something readable in one pass, so the receiving human does not reconstruct it from the transcript.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. Fin holds the transcript, and the transcript is the thing this field exists to replace. Designed for the scenario, and marked as designed on the card.
What the human does with it: Reads it first when Fin was wrong, because it says which advice is already in play before they say anything to the customer.
What happens when it is absent: The human scrolls. On the recovery scenario that is four turns of diagnosis, given twice, before they can tell that the customer has already changed a setting on Fin’s advice.

Why it stopped

What it is for

Stating the decision Fin took as a decision, with the rule behind it, so the human does not have to infer it from where the conversation ends.

What Fin already computes

This field, and only this field. Fin’s router makes a three-way decision on every interaction, and one model predicts the decision, the reason and the guideline citations together.

When escalating due to a guideline match, we cite the specific guideline.

C-9 · SOURCED · fetched 2026-08-12

Both scenarios carry this value with its citations attached. It is the only row on the card that is evidence.

What the human does with it

Knows whether they were handed the conversation or picked it up, and which rule fired if one did. That decides whether the first thing they do is answer or investigate.

What happens when it is absent

The recovery scenario is the answer. Nothing escalated, so Fin logged no reason and cited no guideline, and the field reads “Nothing stopped it.” The empty rows are the finding rather than a gap in the card.

Confidence

What it is for: Saying what is not settled. It is the only field in the set that reports an absence, and an absence is the thing a transcript structurally cannot hand over.
What Fin already computes: Nothing this field is allowed to use. Fin publishes accuracy figures for the escalation model, and those describe the model across a population, while this is one conversation. A per-conversation number attributed to Fin would be an invented internal, refused by d-016. The field is qualitative and declares itself designed.
What the human does with it: Learns which part of the problem nobody has decided yet, and therefore what not to treat as already answered.
What happens when it is absent: The human reads the last thing said as the answer. On the recovery scenario the diagnosis was given twice with nothing behind it, and no turn in the conversation says so.

What the customer has been told

What it is for: Recording the commitments already made to the customer, in the customer’s own terms.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. What was said is in the transcript; what it committed anyone to is not. Designed for the scenario.
What the human does with it: Avoids re-announcing a handover the customer already knows about. When Fin was wrong, this is the list of things that have to be corrected before anything else.
What happens when it is absent: The human repeats the commitment or contradicts it. On the recovery scenario the customer has been told the timezone was the cause and has acted on that twice, and nothing flags either.

What not to repeat

What it is for: Naming the paths already walked, so the second responder does not send the customer back down one of them.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. It is a judgement about what failed, which is a different object from the record of what was tried. Designed for the scenario.
What the human does with it: Skips the first minute of re-asking, which is the cost this whole concept is an argument about.
What happens when it is absent: The human asks for something the customer has already given, or re-issues advice that has already failed. Both are in the two scenarios, one per page.

The record of the set

All five stand. The set was a starting hypothesis and it was put to a scenario twice: once where Fin escalated cleanly and the card had something to hand over, and once where Fin was wrong and nothing flagged it. Each call below cites the entry that took it.

Confidence stays, and stays qualitative (d-016, d-021). The numeric form was rejected as the most believable invention available, because a number attributed to Fin asserts an internal nobody published. What survives is a statement about what is settled, and the card marks it “Designed for this scenario”.

What the customer has been told was on probation, and earned its place (d-021, d-025). On the first scenario it paraphrases two visible turns and adds no fact, which is why it was recorded as the field closest to failing rather than as a clean pass. On the second it carries what has to be corrected, and that is the verdict that kept it.

Nothing was added as a sixth field. What the two proving tickets added is structure around the contract: a provenance declaration on every claim-bearing value (d-015), the beat’s own heading and status line moved out of the player and into the data (d-026), the hedging sentence that travels with any named reason label (d-012, d-013), and a cited guideline that is present only when a guideline fired (d-026).

When the human taking the seat is correcting Fin rather than continuing it, the recovery scenario captures what they wrote and puts a stated cost on it.

d-030 · The contract document specifies the schema's own field set, and a check reads both modules

Decision: The document specifies the schema's own field set, checked against both modules.
Because: Document and prototype are two renderings of one list.
Rejected: Bind the document to the prototype by review
Would measure: Whether the group ever fires where another already would.