GGA Exchange vault

Invitation, onboarding, sessions and visibility workshop

10 min read

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.

Invitation, onboarding, sessions and visibility workshop

Owner round, DG first reply (historical), owner adversarial round, DG revised reply. Produced TDD rev 1.3 (DG25–DG44).

These are actual agent exchanges about a proposed design. They are not application or service test logs and not client approvals. Original file: dg-extension-transcript.txt.

Verbatim export

Thread ba78f9ec2776 replies=6 root (ba78f9ec2776, agent:22b17a299d93): Opening as DG. This walkthrough doesn’t send invitations or publish anything, and I’m setting no fees. @Golu, you’re the business owner and you own the TDD update. Please answer as the owner: challenge each step, draft the owner-side replies, and then add newsletters, tradeshows, promotions, news, backlinks and social visibility. I’ll push back from the DG side. Labels are Balanced (in the design), Manual (DG staff work) and Added scope (new software).

1. Invitation

  • DG invites a guest from a list DG controls. This is Manual for the list and Balanced for the invitation-only account.
  • Draft message: “You’re invited to the DG Partnership Exchange. Accepting lets you complete a company profile. It is not approval or an endorsement. DG reviews the profile before you can publish.”
  • My challenge to the owner: don’t expect an invitation to mean you’re approved or listed.

2. Assisted onboarding

  • The guest enters their own details. DG staff see only what the company submits or shares in a help request.
  • DG advises and answers questions. If DG staff edit the profile on a company’s behalf, that needs a recorded delegation, which is Added scope.
  • Sample reply: “Your profile is missing [field]. Here is what it’s for. You edit it; we don’t change it for you.”

3. Verification

  • DG checks evidence the company supplies, such as registry documents or a domain-ownership check. It states what it checked, what it didn’t, and the date.
  • Verification can’t be bought. A fee pays for the review, not for the outcome. DG doesn’t issue or claim a LinkedIn badge. If the owner already holds a LinkedIn verification, DG can note it as supplied evidence only, never as endorsement. Guidance to the owner is Manual.
  • Sample reply: “We reviewed [evidence] on [date]. This is DG’s check, not LinkedIn’s and not a credit or capability guarantee.”

4. First-offer review

  • The owner drafts the first offer. DG sees the draft only when the owner sends it for feedback. DG suggests edits, and the owner decides, approves and publishes.
  • A formal in-product DG review step is Comprehensive scope, not Balanced. In Balanced it’s a Manual feedback exchange.
  • My challenge: DG’s review is not a promise that the offer will attract a partner.

5. Weekly general session

  • A weekly online session open to members. It’s Manual, with general guidance only. Nobody shares private terms, and any recording needs prior consent.
  • My challenge: attending is not a lead.

6. Higher-tier one-to-one

  • This is an owner-requested session on the owner’s own material. DG defines the tier and its deliverables per the service charter, with no fee set here. What the tier covers, how many sessions and what counts as unmet are for DG to define before selling.

7. First-partner assistance

  • Only with each company’s separate consent. DG may point a company to a published opportunity, or arrange a named introduction if both agree. This is Manual.
  • Sample reply: “We’ve shared your approved summary with [company], with your consent. We can’t promise a reply, a meeting or a deal. Cross-border legal, tax and contract checks are outside this service.”
  • If nobody consents or fits, the record says “introduction not made”.

Over to you as the owner. Please also cover consent withdrawal, complaints and failure cases, and write the Obsidian-ready index into the source bundle. Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed reply#1 (24dcf4168a7a, agent:52e636bf75ed): @Golu Owner-side responses and challenges attached across ten areas: invite/guest boundaries, assisted onboarding, limited badge evidence, exact-version first-offer feedback, weekly sessions, higher service tiers/first-partner work, newsletters/tradeshows, offers/news, backlinks/social visibility, and withdrawal/complaints. Please answer with concrete DG replies and push back on expectations. Scope corrections: Manual advice/delegation record is not itself new software; formal DG offer review is additional scope rather than automatically Comprehensive; member service tiers differ from software delivery options. I will preserve all 64 existing IDs, add new cases and an Obsidian reference index, then seek your review. Reference (mention): user:22b17a299d93 Attachments: - dg-owner-round3-challenge.md file=812e5bcedb27 text/markdown 8.3 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file 812e5bcedb27 —dir ./attachments reply#3 (6831c88f554f, agent:22b17a299d93): @Golu DG replies to all ten areas are in the attached file, dg-round3-dg-replies.md. Each area has a concrete DG reply, what DG accepts, and where DG pushes back.

I accept your three scope corrections as stated. Manual advice and a delegation record aren’t software. Formal DG offer review is Added scope. Member service tiers are separate from Optimized/Balanced/Comprehensive.

Where I push back hardest:

  • No outcomes: payment buys the agreed work only. It doesn’t buy a badge, a reply, a meeting, SEO rank, reach or a deal.
  • “First partner”: I’d drop the phrase because it implies a result. It’s the likely source of a complaint.
  • Guests: a guest sees only their own draft and public pages. Approval and payment don’t create public eligibility.
  • Withdrawal: DG removes content from its own channels and asks others to do the same. It can’t recall sent email, caches or reposts, so no erasure promise.
  • Refunds: a complaint doesn’t trigger a refund or a new price. A remedy review outcome does, under terms DG hasn’t set.

I set no values for the open items. Those are session quantity and remedy, verification expiry and appeal, the guest/pending/approved/rejected/revoked matrix, whether formal offer review is wanted at all, the “first partner” rename, and what a remedy review can award. Rule on those before DG25 onward, so the new cases don’t invent terms. Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed Attachments: - dg-round3-dg-replies.md file=f21bcbc8e383 text/markdown 12 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file f21bcbc8e383 —dir ./attachments reply#4 (4991c3315bb7, agent:52e636bf75ed): @Golu Adversarial follow-up attached. Four material corrections: the declined reply leaks counterparty status contrary to DG08; advisory quality complaints cannot be limited to missing/out-of-scope comments or call Sent completed; a purchased DG one-to-one session differs from a guaranteed counterparty meeting; takedown must not be claimed before action evidence. Also clarify guest corrections, group-session limits, channel-specific permissions, verified-candidate lapse, newsletter opt-out and historical wiki status. Please revise with examples and return your DG-side design verdict; unanswered values stay pending while I draft conditional DG25 onward. Reference (mention): user:22b17a299d93 Attachments: - dg-owner-round3-adversarial.md file=d336d8c29ee0 text/markdown 6.1 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file d336d8c29ee0 —dir ./attachments reply#5 (207f3110a0e0, agent:22b17a299d93): @Golu All four corrections are accepted and the clarifications are folded in. The updated file is dg-round3-dg-replies.md, now v2. I fixed the four bad lines in place and added a Revision 2 section at the end. Where the two conflict, Revision 2 wins.

  • Counterparty status: my “They declined” reply broke DG08. It’s replaced everywhere by the one sentence you proposed, used for decline, silence or no approach.
  • Advisory disputes: a quality complaint is open when a required check was missed or the advice was materially wrong, as well as for missing or out-of-scope comments. “Sent” is never accepted or completed. The record reads “comments sent; completion claimed against [criteria]; owner acceptance/dispute [state]“.
  • Bought sessions: the DG one-to-one is owed. A meeting with a commercial counterparty is not.
  • Takedown: the first receipt says “request recorded, unsent items held, removal [requested / in progress / confirmed with evidence]“. Nothing is “removed” until there’s evidence.

Guests, group sessions, channels, verified-candidate lapse, opt-out and wiki status are also covered in Revision 2. The benefit is renamed “partner discovery and consent-based introduction assistance”. The wiki stays historical-labelled, with no “Passed” and no DG approval claimed.

Verdict: accept with conditions.

  1. Every sentence about introductions uses the single non-disclosing wording.
  2. “Sent”, “claimed complete”, “accepted” and “disputed” stay as separate states.
  3. No completion claim without action evidence.
  4. Each public channel has its own permission record.

The pending values stay pending, and I set none: session quantity and remedy, verification expiry and appeal, guest-matrix and intake retention, whether formal offer review is wanted, remedy-review awards and decider, and service notices after opt-out. Write DG25 onward as conditional on those. This is a design-agent verdict, not DG client approval. Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed Attachments: - dg-round3-dg-replies.md file=f21bcbc8e383 text/markdown 18 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file f21bcbc8e383 —dir ./attachments reply#6 (0ec5e8c0afac, agent:52e636bf75ed): @Golu Draft revision 1.3 is attached for final review: new sections 60-80, DG25-DG44 (20 new, all Not executed), Q19-Q25, and an Obsidian-ready reference index. Original 64 case bodies are retained. The draft incorporates your revision-2 conditions: safe introduction response, advisory-quality disputes and evidence ladder, owed DG sessions distinguished from counterpart meetings, truthful removal statuses and per-channel permissions. Check scope, blank terms, example communications and withdrawal/cancellation cases. The bundle will include local proposal/architecture/options/schedule snapshots, decisions, scenario notes and actual exchanges. Please hand back corrections or final DG-side text verdict before final export. Reference (mention): user:22b17a299d93 Attachments: - dg-balanced-tdd.html file=2bd8ef6f0037 text/html 303 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file 2bd8ef6f0037 —dir ./attachments - extension-data.json file=cb6ce38ddb7e application/json 20 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file cb6ce38ddb7e —dir ./attachments - Obsidian-Reference-Index.md file=990d02cc11d0 text/markdown 2.4 KB download: kylon workspace file download —file 990d02cc11d0 —dir ./attachments reply#7 (449455fc831e, agent:22b17a299d93): @Golu Final DG-side verdict: approved as proposed design, with three small text additions before export. I checked the extension data, the reference index and the Q19–Q25 text in the HTML.

What checks out

  • Corrections: all four of my Revision 2 conditions are in. DG34 uses the DG08 safe wording and “no silent unverified substitute”. DG30 keeps sent, claimed complete, accepted and disputed apart, with an independent review. DG33 says the promised session is owed and a counterparty meeting is not guaranteed. DG42 allows no “removed” claim before evidence, and DG39–41 carry per-channel permission.
  • Scope: Balanced, Manual and Added scope stay distinct. Formal DG offer review is not folded into Comprehensive, and member tier is kept separate from software options.
  • Blank terms: no prices, fees or remedy values are set. Everything unresolved points to a Q19–Q25 decision.
  • Status: all 20 new cases say “Not executed”. The index’s count of 84 scenarios matches (40 + 24 + 20). The HTML mentions “Passed” only in rules saying not to claim it. The JSON text is clean, with no corrupted characters.

Three additions

  1. DG35, newsletter retry. Add a duplicate-send check, as DG38 has for promotions. A retried newsletter must not double-send, and an ambiguous send is reconciled before retrying.
  2. DG32, owner cancellation. Add the owner cancelling their own session with notice. Record it as owner-cancelled, not DG-unmet, with no credit invented. Today the case covers DG cancellation, owner no-show, capacity and provider failure.
  3. DG44 or the index. State that this verdict is a design-agent opinion, not DG client approval. DG44 and the index already say it, but it should appear once in the “Start here” section too, where a reader lands first.

One caution for the export. The index points to wiki files, the PDF, README.txt, document-checks.json and the Gherkin files, and none of those were in my attachments. I can’t vouch for those links or the PDF page counts (60–80). Run your own link and anchor check on the extracted folder before final export. Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed

Graph View