Money

$304,400 left to commit, not $486,200 of $792,000 under a 61% fill. The second answers how far through their money they are — the one number that makes somebody standing in a half-built house anxious, and the one they can do nothing about. The first is actionable.

And the credit is in it, at −$1,900. A ledger where only the overruns survive is a ledger that is arguing rather than recording — and a homeowner who says no to something is entitled to that being in there too.

Per §4 of your agreement. Contract type is a fact about their contract rather than a setting they change, and it is read everywhere money is rendered — on this surface, on the focus card's cost line, in the coming-up band, and in what the coach is allowed to say.

An allowance is about scope and fires when the pick differs from what was set aside. A threshold is about authority and fires when the spend crosses a number. Both directions happen: an item over its budget line can sit under the approval line and need no permission, and an item inside its allowance can cross $2,500.

Which is precisely why the digest exists, and why its cadence is a safety parameter rather than a preference. All three ledger rows above were heard on a Friday, on a page nobody requested.

You said yes up to $3,300. It came in at $3,900. The third row is a different animal from the two above it: the threshold worked, the question was asked, and the answer was yes. Reality then overran the answer. That gap is a variance in its own right and it earns its own line and its own when you heard — because a yes to $3,300 is not a yes to $3,900, and a ledger that quietly folded the difference into the approval would be recording consent nobody gave. Without this row, cost plus has a silent hole exactly where it has no forcing function: say yes to $3,300, get billed $3,900, and nothing ever said so.

Not hidden and not the same as margin. On cost plus the fee is a contract term she is paying and is entitled to see; on fixed price there is no fee, there is a margin, and she may neither see it nor infer it from anything on her screens.

So they can see the number and see that it is not counted. Folding it in would make the headroom figure wrong; leaving it off the screen would make the confirmation feel like paperwork about nothing.

The code that confirms a signature and the code that verifies an email are the same mechanism, used where it is worth something. Being signed in already is that proof, so a paid homeowner never sees the code, and confirming here is one tap.

An earlier draft of the note above ended …which is the whole reason this screen exists in the app and could not exist as a link, and that last clause was wrong in a way worth recording. Sam and Nora are the only homeowners in this product who hold seats. Ben, Ana and Tom have no session, so on three of the four jobs every signature is made through a link — the case this sentence said could not exist is the ordinary one. What is true is narrower and still worth saying: this screen, the one-tap confirmation, needs a session. The link version is drawn on 36 · Proving it was you, and it is where the code actually lands.

A denominator is permitted where the total is a fixed pool, set once and not moved by anything that happens against it, and the reader can act on the balance. A bank stops at $840,000; a contingency reserve is set aside once and doesn't grow when you spend against it — both qualify, one externally enforced and one self-set. A contract sum still does not: a change order moves the total itself, so a fill against it answers only how far through am I. _ds/money.css carries the rule now; 10-now's contingency card is the second use.

This was one flat segment at 62.5%, which answered how far through am I — the exact question the annotation above refuses to answer against a contract. Three segments answer a better one: what is the rest of it doing. $525,000 is banked, $189,000 releases on an inspection that has a date, and $126,000 has no date at all. The reader could always have got that by adding up the six below; now they get it without.

And that is the test for whether anything else may wear this. A loan is fully allocated the day it is written: every dollar is paid, due or scheduled, so the bar has no remainder to leave blank. A budget with money simply not spent yet has a gap, and a gap is where a reader starts reading the bar as progress again. The test is a fixed pool, not "is it a loan" — contingency passes it too (10-now) and the component generalized rather than being redrawn a second time. Page 21's GMP cap and page 33's cost-plus target still have none, for the reasons those pages give: neither is a fixed pool.

Pending, approved, due, paid. Due is the one that fires a notification, and it is drawn as a date and a record rather than as an instruction — because who acts on a due draw varies by loan, and the honest thing is to draw what is known and say the rest is theirs to find out.

A draw is a date, so a change order that pushes an inspection pushes the money with it. That is the third place a schedule impact lands, after the focus card's close date and the coming-up band — and it is why a change order showing only money makes the cheap-but-slow change look better than the expensive-but-instant one.

G6, and it is the same distinction the credit makes on 23: a reversal terminates at acknowledged rather than at signed, because she confirms she saw it and does not sign an obligation. Here the reason is stronger still — the money is gone. A screen offering Approve would be collecting a decision after the event and filing it as though it had been asked for beforehand, which is worse than collecting nothing.

Something looks wrong is not a rejection, because there is nothing left to reject. It opens the ask against this draw, with the inspection sheet and his report attached, and it is the honest thing to offer somebody who has just been told about a hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars after the fact. A confirm-only screen would leave them with a button they do not believe and no way to say so.

On some loans the lender releases on inspection with nothing asked of the homeowner; on others they request it. This frame is the first case, drawn as a record rather than an instruction, which is the rule frame 4 already states. The second case is a different screen and this deck does not guess at it.

A homeowner who says no has made a decision, and it belongs in the record with its reason. Deleting the change order would leave the decision looking as though it had never been priced.

It returns the decision to open with the declined amendment cited, and the recommended next step is the escape both money links already draw: go back to the option that needs no paperwork. A decline with nowhere to go is a dead end wearing a button.

$0 by 8 June, not by the date that has already passed. Carrying the old deadline forward would be the product quoting a number it knows is stale, on the one screen where the number is the argument.