Record it, amend it, reverse it, and hold the evidence that he said so. A change order carries a schedule impact beside its cost impact, because this pushes you a week is the sentence it exists to say — and voiding one produces a reversal rather than an erasure, because a record that can be un-made is not a record.
“two circuits and the floor box, go ahead”
Not a mandatory second step. When the person capturing already holds the authority to commit, capturing is standing behind it. Manufacturing a verify screen there is the configuration-week instinct in miniature, and it is what turns a thirty-second act into a workflow.
“two circuits and the floor box, go ahead” stays on the record beside his tidied version. A year later the question is what Sam actually said, and a paraphrase is not an answer to it.
An account-less person may assert facts about their own work and may not touch anyone else's record. This is that boundary seen from inside the account: his own observation is his to assert; her decision is hers, and filing it is an act with a gap in it.
Same box, same size, same row. A screen that offered only a money field would quietly teach him that the schedule half is not part of the record — and on a binder organized by time, that half is the point.
This one costs money and moves nothing. Drawn without the field, it would look identical to one that costs money and pushes a month, which makes the second kind look no worse than the first — backwards.
Read, never written. The sheet is read once in March so this can come back out in his columns, and nothing here posts into QuickBooks or into his budget. What he does with it is his business, which is why it is a block to copy rather than a button to sync.
Confirms they saw it. They don't sign it. This one takes money off the contract, and nobody signs an obligation to be given something back.
Send itVoiding is a capability with no state behind it, and the tempting move — a void flag on the original — makes a signed amendment silently disappear. That is the clawback problem wearing different clothes, and the trust ledger is worthless the moment anything in it can vanish.
Which is the distinction the code already carries and the reason acknowledged exists at all: a credit that never lowered the contract is a silent clawback in the other direction. She confirms she saw it. She does not sign it.
This is one of the two capabilities the admin seat does not hold. On her screen the control is there, quiet, with the sentence — reversing a signed change order really is a money action, and money-write has no admin home in this product at any level.
These timestamps can't be edited, by anybody, including you. A disclosure date whose value could be adjusted afterward would be worth nothing to either of you.
It is the product's central claim made auditable against itself, and the only real defense against the failure the research names over and over: a homeowner with full portal access, still blindsided by a five-figure invoice.
Because he is the one who will be asked about it. A push that fails to deliver must never leave a row asserting they heard something they never saw — and the notification that sets a heard-at is his send, not our timer.
The three above are fixed price, where a variance is scope moving against an allowance. On cost plus the same ledger also carries the approval overrun: he asked, they said yes up to $3,300, and it landed at $3,900. The $600 is a variance in its own right and gets its own row and its own heard-at, drawn on the homeowner's side at 13-money frame 2. It matters most to him, because a yes to $3,300 is not evidence for a bill of $3,900, and this screen is what he brings to that argument.
The one field in the product whose worth comes entirely from being fixed. It is the same reason an allowance may not be silently revised: a number that can be adjusted after the fact settles no argument, and a builder with a ledger he could edit has a ledger nobody will accept.
Nothing here. This row exists because approved and signed are different columns, and a job can sit between them for weeks.
The homeowner's review verdict and the signing lifecycle are different columns. Signed is not agreement and approved is not executed, and a screen that rendered one as the other would be wrong in both directions. The section stays, empty, because the gap is real even when nothing is in it.
Everything here is a thing waiting on somebody. Aggregate margin is real, is his, and is not on this screen for the same reason it is not on the Jobs list: a second candidate for the morning screen kills the first one.
An allowance is about scope and fires when the pick differs from what was set aside. An approval threshold is about authority and fires when the spend crosses a number in the contract. They are orthogonal, and an earlier draft of the money spec treated them as one.
Both directions happen. An item over its budget line can sit under the approval line and need no permission at all; an item comfortably inside its allowance can cross a $2,500 threshold. So a cost-plus job can produce a variance nobody was asked about — which is precisely why the digest exists, and why its cadence is a safety parameter rather than a preference.
The digest's contents. Assembled from the record, and a digest a builder could curate is a digest that proves nothing.
Its cadence on cost plus, downward. An account-less homeowner's heard-at is the digest date, and on cost plus there is no forcing function behind it. He may make it more frequent, never less.
A heard-at, ever.
The money loop — estimate to budget to QuickBooks. What money means is settled here; building the loop is later, and read, never written is what stands in for it in the meantime.