Questions this system has thrown up that only you can settle, and ideas worth a yes or a no. Each one says what I would do, so none of them is an open question — answer in a line, or press Park if it can wait.
11waiting on you
0answered
2would change what I build next
a questionThis is holding work up
When an answer is corrected here, where should the correction live?
The engine can read from all nine systems and can write to the website. It cannot write back into GCONS, because EPHP have never built an endpoint for these tables. So a correction made here either gets typed into GCONS by hand, or the engine becomes the master and the website is published from it instead.
Once you answer: It decides whether this is a reporting tool or the actual home of the answers, and it is the difference between a half-sync and one source.
Ask EPHP to build a write endpoint, and GCONS stays the master
This engine becomes the master, and the website is published from it
Leave it reading only, and corrections get typed into GCONS by hand
What I would do: This engine becomes the master. You already own the website and the engine; GCONS is the one part you do not control, and waiting on EPHP has been the pattern we are trying to get out of. GCONS keeps being read, so nothing is lost if this is wrong.
a questionThis is holding work up
The engine can refresh itself round the clock. It needs one password entered.
It now reads GCONS from the server, not from a PC, and a job runs every six hours. The server has been able to reach GCONS since 6 October. The one thing missing is the read-only password on this login, which Isaac enters once with the standard secret command. Until then the job runs, finds no password, changes nothing and says so.
Once you answer: The engine is current whether or not anybody is at a desk, and no PC is involved in it at all.
What I would do: I send Isaac the one line today. It is the same read-only password already on the other app logins, going onto a server we own, through the tunnel EPHP authorised.
a questionThis shapes how it is built
One of our answers sends customers to In House Renovations. Is that deliberate?
The question "What if we need help with Finance or Rental Return statement?" is kept twice. One copy says to contact Info@cgfb.com.au, the other says Info@inhouserenovations.com.au. Both are live in the same set.
Once you answer: Either one copy is simply wrong and I retire it, or they belong to different brands and the engine needs to know which answer goes with which audience.
They are different brands - the engine should keep both and label them
The In House Renovations one is wrong here - retire it
The CGFB one is wrong here - retire it
What I would do: Tell me which brand each belongs to. If they are genuinely both ours, I will add the brand to every answer, because this will not be the only one.
a questionThis shapes how it is built
Four questions on the live website are answered two different ways. Who picks?
In the Dual Occupancy set, four questions are each asked twice with different answers: sharing a driveway, a new verge crossing, building near an easement, and whether block shape affects what you can build. A customer can be shown either one.
Once you answer: These are on the website now, so until it is settled we are publishing two answers to the same question.
I pick the better one and you confirm in a glance
You pick each one
Emily or a planner picks, since they are all planning questions
What I would do: I pick, you confirm. They are on the What disagrees screen side by side, so it is a minute of your time rather than an afternoon of mine guessing.
a questionThis shapes how it is built
There are 610 answers nobody outside the business has ever seen. What are they for?
The older business set holds 857 real questions and only 262 have ever been on a website. The rest are sales and planning answers written over years, sitting unused.
Once you answer: It is the biggest body of written answers we own, and it is either the fastest content win available or it is dead weight worth retiring.
Go through them and publish the good ones
Keep them internal, for staff and for the AI to answer from
Retire them - they are out of date
What I would do: Keep them internal first and let the AI answer from them, which costs nothing and risks nothing. Publishing can follow for the ones that earn it.
a questionThis shapes how it is built
Who is allowed to approve an answer?
714 of the 1,735 questions are not approved by anybody. For design facts you said Emily, John and the design staff. Q&A may be different, since a planning answer carries more risk than a floor plan fact.
Once you answer: It decides who the approval queue goes to, and nothing can go live without it.
The same people as design facts: Emily, John, design staff
Planning answers to Emily only, everything else to you
Only you
What I would do: Planning answers to Emily, the rest to you. Planning is the only part where a wrong answer costs money.
an ideaThis shapes how it is built
Let the AI answer customers from this database, and drop the broken search
The Q&A search on the website was built by Web 1 Experts, it has never worked properly, and you are disputing the invoice. This engine now holds every answer the business has, in one place, with a score saying how good each one is.
Once you answer: It replaces the thing you are paying a dispute over, with something we own, and it uses the 610 answers that are currently invisible.
What I would do: Yes. It is the same build as Find My Design: the database decides which answers are relevant, and the AI only writes the wording. It cannot invent an answer we do not hold.
an ideaThis shapes how it is built
Use the same answers in the Planning Report and in Find My Design
All three tools answer customer questions, and all three currently answer them from different places. One store means a planning answer corrected once is corrected everywhere.
Once you answer: It is the same argument as the Design Engine: one place, and everything downstream follows.
What I would do: Yes, but after the approvals are settled. Spreading unapproved answers to three tools spreads the problem.
a questionWorth knowing, not urgent
The website has 303 question pages but we hold 298 public answers.
Counted on the site on 10 October and against GCONS today. Five pages exist that no current answer accounts for.
Once you answer: Either five pages are orphaned and should come down, or five answers have gone missing from GCONS and the pages are the only copy left.
What I would do: Let me work out which five before you decide anything. If the pages are the only copy, they come into the engine first.
a questionWorth knowing, not urgent
A question called "testing" is live in two systems.
Question: "testing". Answer: "testing123345". It is in the Dual Occupancy set and in the quote builder. I cannot delete anything in GCONS, so it needs a person.
Once you answer: Small, but it is in the set that feeds the website.
What I would do: Ask whoever has GCONS open to delete both. I will confirm it is gone on the next refresh.
an ideaWorth knowing, not urgent
Find the questions customers ask that we have no answer for
We now know exactly what we can answer. The other half is what people actually ask - in enquiries, in the sales mailbox, in the website search. Anything asked often and not held here is a gap.
Once you answer: It turns the engine from a record of what we have written into a list of what to write next, ordered by what customers want.
What I would do: Yes, once the mailbox access is settled. Until then the website search terms alone would give a useful first list.