Round Extension DG Reply v2

Status. Proposed design only. Nothing in this vault is DG client approval. No application, service or test has been executed; every scenario is Not executed. Fees and dates are open.

Disposition under GGA (R6)

Historical record about the 1.3 proposal, written before the GGA documents arrived. It is preserved verbatim below and is not GGA approval, policy or an oracle. Where it disagrees with the GGA documents (see GGA-Source-Digest), the GGA documents govern (Vault-Update-Plan section 9, N1 and N2). “DG” in the text below means GGA. Current dispositions: Decision-Index-staged, Scenario-Dispositions-staged.

Round Extension DG Reply v2

Original: dg-round3-dg-replies-v2.md.

---

DG response to owner round 3 — ten areas

Design discussion only. Nothing is sent, published, sold or priced. Labels: Balanced (in the design), Manual (DG staff work), Added scope (new software or a formally new workflow). I accept your three scope corrections: Manual advice and a recorded delegation are not software; formal DG offer review is Added scope, not automatically Comprehensive; member service tiers are not Optimized/Balanced/Comprehensive delivery options.

1. Invitation and first interaction

DG reply: “This invitation is not approval. Accepting lets you complete a company profile. Before you submit, here is what membership includes, what is optional, what stays private, and what happens if we decline: your profile is not listed, you keep your own data, and we tell you the reason category. The link works only for the invited contact. If you forward it, the recipient cannot claim your company.”

Agreed: pre-submit summary; invite bound to the recipient; no silent newsletter enrolment; invite is not a subscription.

Pushback:

• You can’t have a guest matrix with member-only opportunity visibility “by assumption” — I agree guests see none. But I won’t promise a view of any opportunity before approval. Guest = own profile draft and the public pages, nothing else.
• “DG reviews before you publish” is membership eligibility only. I agree it is not a veto on each offer. It does not become one later through a tier label.
• Expired, revoked, used and wrong-recipient links: Balanced (invitation-only account). Resend without duplicate membership: Balanced. A duplicate-company claim goes to a Manual review; no auto-merge, no auto-reject.
• Proposed matrix, to be confirmed: guest (draft only) → pending (read-only status, can withdraw) → approved (member rules) → rejected (no access, can reapply per DG policy) → revoked (access ends, own data export per policy).

2. Assisted onboarding and representation

DG reply: “This field is needed because [purpose]. You enter and confirm it. We never ask for your password and never log in as you. If you want a suggested paragraph, we’ll send text; you paste and approve it.”

Agreed: advice and suggested wording are Manual. A recorded manual delegation (who, what, when, revoked when) is a record, not a feature. In-product edit-on-behalf is Added scope and needs its own authority and access design.

Pushback:

• You can’t ask DG to “just fix it in the system” under help-session rules. No edit-on-behalf without the added scope.
• Separate three things in every help exchange: profile content, public promotional copy, private verification evidence. Help on one doesn’t grant sight of the others.
• Absent owner, false ownership claim, revoked helper, missing evidence: status stays pending. Nothing auto-approves, and DG doesn’t declare guilt before review.

3. Evidence-based badge

DG reply: “DG checked [specific fact] using [source supplied by you] on [date]. Not checked: [list]. This is DG’s check. It is not issued by LinkedIn, not an endorsement, and not proof of any other claim. Valid until [date or event].”

Agreed: fee pays for the described review, never an outcome. Three things are separate: company eligibility, representative authority, one limited checked fact. A third-party badge screenshot is supplied evidence only.

Pushback:

• Expiry and dispute rules must exist before DG sells a review. Proposed: the check carries a date and lapses on a stated trigger. A dispute puts the badge on hold; the appeal is a Manual second reviewer. I’ll write these as proposals, not promised terms.
• No storage or upload of registry documents and no registry integration are promised. Evidence handling is whatever the design says; if it needs a store, that is Added scope.
• Unsupported claim reply: “We couldn’t confirm [fact] from what was supplied. That isn’t a finding about your company. You can add evidence or leave it unverified.”
• No-badge is a normal outcome and you get the same service record either way.

4. First offer and DG feedback

DG reply: “We received V1 [version id] for feedback on [permitted fields] only. Our comments are suggestions. We won’t edit your offer or contact anyone about it. You approve any revision and publish the exact version yourself.”

Agreed: DG sees a draft only when sent for feedback; no discovery through admin rights; no lead use; owner approval is role- and version-bound.

Pushback:

• You can’t treat formal DG publication review as included. It is Added scope, a separate workflow; a tier label does not approve it. In Balanced it stays a Manual feedback exchange.
• Record on an advisory exchange: version reviewed, comments sent, owner decision (accepted/rejected/partly). “Sent” is not accepted and not completed. Record: “comments sent; completion claimed against [agreed review criteria]; owner acceptance/dispute [state].” Rejecting a suggestion is not a service failure, and a quality dispute (missed required check, materially wrong advice) stays open to you. (Revision 2)
• Wrong advice: DG owns correcting its own comment and notes it in the record. DG does not own your offer’s results.

5. Weekly general online session

DG reply: “The weekly session is general guidance for members. It is not a sales channel or a private consultation. Attendees: [members only]. Visible: [display name/company only if you choose]. Questions: [visible to host only unless you opt to share]. Not recorded, no transcript, no AI notetaker unless announced beforehand with your consent.”

Agreed: members versus optional public event are different audiences; guests don’t inherit portal access; no attendee list disclosure, no testimonials by default.

Pushback:

• Quantity, coverage and remedy must be written before sale, and I won’t invent them here. Open item for DG: sessions per period, what happens on cancellation (credit? reschedule? nothing?). Until set, no promise.
• Private-question spill: host stops the answer, deletes the question from any shared notes, tells the asker. Manual.
• Cancellation, no-show, capacity, provider failure, accessible alternative (written summary of the general points): Manual, all written down before the first session.
• Registration, calendar or video integration is Added scope. A staff-run session is Manual.

6. Higher tier one-to-one and first partner

DG reply: “Your service tier covers [agreed review / session count / search effort / introduction work]. The DG sessions you bought are owed. It does not cover a reply, a meeting with a commercial counterparty, a badge, a contract or an overseas deal. Unmet items: [listed]. If we find nobody, the record says ‘introduction not made’, states which obligation remains unmet, and you can request a remedy review.”

Agreed: member service tier is separate from Optimized/Balanced/Comprehensive. Higher payment gives no extra private access, no paid verification, no ranking preference.

Pushback:

• “First partner” wording: I’d drop it. It implies a result. Rename to “introduction work” or similar. A complaint about that phrasing gets this reply: “We agree the wording suggested an outcome. We’ve corrected it, and you can request a remedy review under the tier’s terms.”
• Session delivered ≠ introduction delivered. Both are separate lines in the record.
• Consent from both parties must be current at the moment of sharing, and badge evidence must be in date at that moment. If it lapsed between shortlist and intro, DG re-checks or tells you; it doesn’t share.
• Replies: one-to-one cancelled by DG → reschedule or remedy review per terms. No fit → “introduction not made”. Counterparty declines, is silent or is never approached → one sentence for all: “No introduction is arranged under this request. We do not disclose other companies’ responses or whether any were sought.” (Revision 2)
• Remedy terms (refund? credit?) are DG’s to define before sale. I’m not setting a fee or refund here.

7. Newsletter and tradeshow information

DG reply: “Do you want the newsletter? It covers [topics] for [recipients]. Say no and nothing changes. Unsubscribing never affects your membership or account and security messages.”

Agreed: invitation or session attendance is not a subscription. Newsletters carry editorial and public information only: no private discussion, no member lists.

Pushback:

• “For all people” means optional public information, not emailing every guest. A guest gets nothing unless they opt in separately.
• Tradeshow item standard: named source, date checked, status (confirmed / changed / cancelled / uncertain), correction route. No endorsement, booking or attendance guarantee.
• Manual editing and sending through an already-approved tool is a service. Subscription centre, campaign automation, calendar ingestion and analytics are Added scope. I won’t let a newsletter turn into business alerts.
• Tradeshow cancelled after send: Manual follow-up note; DG can’t recall delivered email.

8. Promotional offers, company news and posts

DG reply: “An approved member-visible opportunity runs under the existing rules. A flash promotion, news item or public campaign is a different output. We need your approval of the exact copy, audience, period and channels each time. Approval for one doesn’t carry to another.”

Agreed: no double publication on retry, no manufactured deadlines, no automatic deal outcome, takedown route exists.

Pushback:

• Membership approval and payment do not create public eligibility or skip moderation. Public use is a separate decision.
• Wrong price or terms, expired dates, false or unsafe claim, impersonation: hold, tell the owner, require a corrected version. DG doesn’t silently edit.
• Draft rejection reply: “We can’t run this as written because [reason category]. Revise and resubmit; nothing was published.”
• Manual DG editorial help to prepare approved copy: fine. Owner self-service news or ads, boosted posts, public CMS: Added scope.

9. Backlinks and social visibility

DG reply: “We’ll publish only [exact name/logo/copy/link] on [named DG channel] for [period]. Your portal approval or one newsletter approval doesn’t cover LinkedIn, other social, sponsor placement or a public backlink. We check the link destination before posting.”

Agreed: no private URLs or tokens, no unapproved tracking, no logo/customer/attendee image/quote without authority.

Pushback:

• Payment buys the agreed placement work. It does not buy SEO rank, indexing, reach, leads, a recommendation, or any external-platform badge.
• Withdrawal honesty: DG removes it from its own channels and asks third parties to remove reposts. It can’t guarantee cached copies, screenshots, delivered email or others’ reposts are gone.
• Your link: you own the destination and its content. If it changes to something unapproved after posting, DG can take the placement down.

10. Failure, complaint and consent withdrawal

DG reply to “stop the promotion now”: “We recorded your request and held the affected unsent items [list]. Removal of controlled placements is [requested / in progress / confirmed with evidence]. Already-sent items [list] cannot be recalled. Your complaint is recorded against [the disputed deliverable] and is not published.”

Agreed: final manual check compares content revision, recipient/audience, channel, expiry and hold. Withdrawal before send blocks it. After send it stops future use and triggers own-channel removal. These are separate: newsletter opt-out, removing one promotion, withdrawing verification evidence, session recording permission, introduction consent, membership revocation.

Pushback:

• No automatic refund, new price or extra data access follows from a complaint. A refund is a remedy-review outcome under terms DG sets, not automatic.
• “Erasure” is not promised for anything already delivered or shared. Say what was removed, what wasn’t.
• Withdrawal of one consent doesn’t cancel the others unless you say so. DG confirms which one it applied.

Open items for DG to decide (no values set here)

1. Session quantity and remedy for the weekly session and each service tier.
2. Verification expiry triggers, dispute and appeal process.
3. Guest/pending/approved/rejected/revoked matrix confirmation.
4. Whether formal offer review is wanted at all (Added scope).
5. Rename “first partner”.
6. What a remedy review can award, and who decides.

These are proposed design only, not an implementation contract.

---

Revision 2 — responses to the adversarial follow-up

Where this section conflicts with an earlier line, Revision 2 wins. I accept all four material corrections and the six clarifications.

Material corrections

1. Counterparty status leak (DG08): accepted, my error. “They declined” confirmed an approach was made. It is withdrawn everywhere, including section 6. Use one sentence for decline, silence or no approach: “No introduction is arranged under this request. We do not disclose other companies’ responses or whether any were sought.” Only the other company can approve an attributed reply.
2. Advisory quality disputes: accepted. My “dispute only for missing or out-of-scope comments” in section 4 is too narrow. Grounds are: comments not delivered, out of permitted scope, a required check in the agreed criteria missed, materially wrong advice. A reviewer not involved in the original review compares the work with the agreement, with no promise about partner results. “Sent” is never “accepted” or “completed” under the DG16 ladder (my line in section 4 saying completed when delivered is withdrawn). Record: “comments sent; completion claimed against [agreed review criteria]; owner acceptance/dispute [state].” Rejecting a suggestion is not a service failure, and does not block a genuine quality complaint.
3. Bought sessions: accepted. “Does not cover a meeting” in section 6 is corrected: the DG one-to-one session is owed; a guaranteed meeting with a commercial counterparty is not. Cancellation, no-show, capacity or provider failure produce an actual completed/unmet record under terms DG sets; no credits, refund or fee are invented. Weekly cadence is the proposed offer only; schedule, eligibility, capacity, coverage and remedy stay pending.
4. Takedown receipts: accepted. My “Stopped… removed” reply in section 10 is replaced. First receipt: “We recorded your request and held the affected unsent items [list]. Removal of controlled placements is [requested / in progress / confirmed with evidence]. Already-sent items [list] cannot be recalled.” A later receipt states only verified results. Expired consent or a new copy revision blocks scheduled posting even with no request received.

Clarifications

• Guests. The matrix is a proposal. Own draft/status and correction/resubmission are proposed, not decided; no new public pages and no owner export function added silently. A pending correction goes through an agreed route and does not overwrite the submitted revision. Rejection/revocation blocks member and private content; own-intake support and retention is a pending policy choice. Membership eligibility never turns DG feedback into mandatory offer approval.
• Group sessions. Name/company, email CC, roster, Q&A, chat, recording, transcript and third-party bots each need an audience/permission policy. DG cannot promise another attendee won’t screenshot. Use provider controls, neutral display where supported, no default recording or bot, immediate pause on a spill. DG removes what it controls and logs unauthorised exposure as an incident under Q18. Example: “We paused the session when a private term was shared and removed it from the chat and notes we control. We can’t affect attendees’ own copies.” Any later written summary omits private examples and is cleared for its own audience.
• Channel permissions. Portal opportunity, public news, newsletter, backlink and social post each need their own version/channel/audience/period permission. Membership or verification approval is not publicity consent. A staff-curated item on an already approved channel is Manual; self-service publishing, boosting and integrations are Added scope. Link, redirect, UTM or price edits can’t add private terms or new tracking; recheck before publishing and hold on change. Withdrawing one placement is separate from unsubscribing or revoking membership.
• Verified-candidate lapse. If the promised candidate needs a current limited DG check and it lapses, DG pauses and rechecks, or proposes a disclosed service amendment. No silent substitution of an unverified partner. Benefit renamed “partner discovery and consent-based introduction assistance”. Search completed is not intro made; a session is not counterparty acknowledgement; none is a deal. A complaint about earlier outcome-like marketing keeps the original promise in the evidence; the corrected wording is a later change, not a rewrite.
• Newsletter opt-out and corrections. Example: “[Event] — source [name], checked [date], status [changed].” A source claim is not endorsement. A correction after send is recorded and goes only through an approved contact route. Opt-out is not permission to send promotional “corrections”; whether a necessary service notice survives opt-out needs a separate policy (pending). No guarantee an external page, backlink, social post or recording is fully erased.
• Wiki status. Agreed: link source snapshots, TDD/JSON/Gherkin, Q01–Q18 and new Q decisions, and the exchanges. Old drafts and withdrawn proposals are marked historical (this file’s earlier lines now superseded are examples). This thread’s verdict is a design-agent opinion, not DG client approval, and no scenario is marked Passed. No prices, remedy values or external-platform rules invented.

DG-side design verdict

Accept with conditions. The ten areas are workable as proposed design if:

1. Every sentence about introductions uses the single non-disclosing wording.
2. Service records keep “sent / claimed complete / accepted / disputed” separate.
3. Receipts follow action evidence; no completion claim without it.
4. Each public channel has its own permission record.

Pending DG decisions, no values set: session quantity and remedy, verification expiry and appeal, guest-matrix confirmation and own-intake retention, whether formal offer review is wanted, remedy-review awards and decider, service-notice treatment after opt-out. Write DG25 onward as conditional on these. Nothing here is DG client approval.