Order intake at Peter Fasano

A working version in two days

Within two days of starting the build, the first working version was processing the client's real orders. The review board was running at its own address during the first call.

A price mismatch revealed a business rule

During the walkthrough, one line of 21 yards came in at $103.50 against a catalog list of $138.00. Not an error: that showroom deducts its 25% commission when writing the purchase order. Keyed as written, with the monthly commission check also going out, $724.50 would have been paid twice. Nothing was double-paid. It was flagged for confirmation. The system knew none of the rule. It just declined to stay quiet about a number that disagreed, which is the whole design. Flag, never block.

An order held for review: a price that does not match the catalog, with the arithmetic shown — Held for reviewThe flag says what disagreed, and with what. The order moves on.

Make the blind spots visible

The initial intake process looked for attachments. Requests written only in an email body could pass unnoticed, so a separate watcher was built to find them. Over 90 days, it identified five requests without attachments, worth roughly $6,530 at list. People had already caught every one by hand. The watcher makes that gap visible rather than relying on someone to remember to check.

The same principle applies to individual items. If the catalog has no price to compare, the system displays "No list price" rather than silently skipping the check.

The opened Halden and Roe rules check explains a six percent price variance on MAR70, with the fictional order held for review — Price variance · check openedThe opened check explains why the order needs review.

A wrong item number caught and swapped, with the reasoning written out — What it read: a wrong item number caught and swapped, reasoning written out.

The original order document opened from the sheet — What it read from: the original paperwork, one click away.

Seven unattended days. A visible limit.

In August, the review board’s publishing system was offline for a week. The cloud pipeline kept running without a missed cycle. The board stopped updating, and its freshness stamp made that clear. When publishing resumed, a catch-up cycle brought the board up to date.

Before moving the review board to the cloud, the local and cloud pipelines were compared on the same data. A disagreement exposed a defect in both: each silently skipped a price check when the catalog had no price. Both now report that limit. The cutover was postponed until the checks agreed, and the comparison was repeated across the full live queue in September 2026.

268 / 268

Extractions resolve identically through both pipelines

135 / 135

Report pages render identically from the same data

Missed cycles in seven unattended days

A saved sort, offered to the reviewer.

A reviewer may handle orders that passed their checks first, then return to the flagged ones. The board recognizes repeated patterns like this without a model and, after three sessions, offers a saved sort. The reviewer can keep it, rename it, or decline it. It becomes their default only if they choose to keep it.

The suggestion appears once. The board's default remains chronological unless the reviewer chooses otherwise.

The dark saved-sort suggestion card with Keep it and No thanks buttons, shown with fictional Halden and Roe orders — A learned sort, offeredKeep it, rename it, or turn it off