fix(seed): drop the upgrade's close horizon from the Acme description

[os-bill]

Fixes #1713

Description

The Acme Corporation description in src/data/sales.seed.ts kept its own copy of a date. The third Current state bullet asserted that the platform upgrade "closes in 30 days", while the record it describes seeds close_date as cel`daysFromNow(30)`. The two agree only at the instant the seed loads: the record resolves to a fixed calendar day and stops moving, and the prose keeps asserting thirty for as long as that demo database lives. A demo seeded three weeks ago shows an upgrade closing in nine days beside a description that says thirty.

Read this as a ruling conflict, not as someone deleting #1657's work

This card is the conflict between #1657 and #1660, and it has already been adjudicated: the ruling is that #1660 generalises. The removed clause was not an oversight. #1657 put that horizon there on purpose, and its changeset (.changeset/acme-narrative-and-a-flagged-partner.md) says so in as many words: the line previously read "Renewal due in 45 days", which named no record at all, and it was rewritten to name the upgrade and its real horizon.

• fix(seed): reconcile the Acme narrative, and flag a non-customer #1657 authored this sentence, horizon included. Giving the sentence a horizon was that card's fix.
• The Acme AI governance workshop is scheduled three different ways across three seeded records, and the task to book it is due a day after the event #1660 then settled the opposite for the sibling field on the same opportunity. The standing comment above next_step on Acme Platform Upgrade reads: "Do not put a date back here, absolute OR relative: a second copy is a second thing to drift." That ruling never swept back over the account description one screen up.

Ruling (R64 triage, comment 5559408218): reading 1 — #1660 generalises; the horizon comes out of the prose. Three reasons, heaviest first:

1. PR fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715 did the opposite thing inside this same block one card earlier. The ARR bullet no longer carries a date, while this bullet still said "closes in 30 days". Leaving it meant one three-bullet block running two opposite rules, which is worse for a reader than either uniform answer.
2. The Acme AI governance workshop is scheduled three different ways across three seeded records, and the task to book it is due a day after the event #1660's own stated reason does not support a next_step-only reading. It says "a second copy is a second thing to drift" — that is about copies and drift, not about which fields a rep may edit. The narrow reading requires rewriting what the comment actually says.
3. The sentence is not empty without the horizon. The deal is open, it is in proposal, and the workshop on the calendar gates the signature. That second half is what the bullet is really about, and it does not drift.

Reading 3 (derive the horizon instead of typing it) was not taken: src/data/revenue.seed.ts already imports from sales.seed.ts, so the existing period-label helper cannot be reused in this direction without a circular import, and either way the 30 would be re-stated outside the record that owns it.

Reversibility. This ruling costs one line either way. If the maintainer holds that demo narrative should carry a real horizon (reading 2), reverting is a one-line revert — but then the in-file #1660 comment must be rewritten to state that it is limited to next_step, or the next reader walks into the same conflict.

Changes Made

• src/data/sales.seed.ts — the third Current state bullet of the Acme Corporation description drops its horizon clause and keeps everything that stays true however the upgrade is scheduled.

Before:

- That upgrade closes in 30 days — AI agent governance became a
  hard requirement after their internal compliance review, so the
  workshop now on the calendar is the gate on signature.

After:

- AI agent governance became a hard requirement for that upgrade
  after their internal compliance review, so the workshop now on
  the calendar is the gate on signature.

The horizon is not re-derived here, it is gone. The bullet immediately above it already states that the upgrade is open and in proposal stage, so nothing the ruling asked to keep was lost.

• .changeset/acme-description-drops-the-upgrade-horizon.md — new. Seed data is part of the product surface, so this PR carries a changeset rather than reaching for skip-changeset; the gate was left to decide and it wants one.

Deliberately unchanged: Acme Platform Upgrade's close_date (cel`daysFromNow(30)`), stage, probability and next_step, plus the #1660 comment above next_step — the record owns that date and is correct. Only the prose's second copy is removed. No other relative horizon in this file was swept: #1712 and #1714 own their own lines.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) — seed narrative correctness.

What I measured before editing

The heaviest leg of the ruling is a fact about the neighbouring bullet, so I re-tested it first rather than taking it on trust.

• The adjacent ARR bullet carries no date. On origin/main @ aad29010 it reads - ARR: $220K (signed renewal). Up 22% YoY. — PR fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715's repair is in place, so the ruling's first reason stands. One correction to the grading's wording, substance unaffected: the ARR bullet is not literally adjacent to this one — the "1 open enterprise opportunity" bullet sits between them — but all three are the same Current state block, and the middle bullet carries no date either, so "one block, two opposite rules" is exactly what it was.
• Stronger than the grading claimed: the comment PR fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715 landed above this very description field already generalises The Acme AI governance workshop is scheduled three different ways across three seeded records, and the task to book it is due a day after the event #1660 in writing — "Same ruling as the next_step block below (The Acme AI governance workshop is scheduled three different ways across three seeded records, and the task to book it is due a day after the event #1660): no date goes back into this prose, absolute OR relative." That note governs the whole description, not just the ARR line. fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715's changeset says the same thing: "no date goes back into seed prose, absolute or relative, because a second copy is a second thing to drift." So the standing guard for the next reader is already in the file and needed no second copy of its own.
• No counter-evidence found. I searched for a written convention requiring real horizons in demo narrative; there is none. Every landed statement on this question runs the other way.
• The sentence was located by text, not by line number, as instructed — it was still at line 205, but the search was on the text.
• Nothing pins the removed string. No test, doc, translation or fixture references "closes in 30 days"; the only other hits are unrelated 30-day windows.

Testing

Full pnpm verify chain, run in order, each exit code captured before any pipe. Green on 1e38ecff:

step	exit	evidence
pnpm validate	0	✓ Validation passed (1715ms)
pnpm typecheck	0	tsc --noEmit, no output
pnpm lint	0	1 warning(s), 12 suggestion(s) — baseline, unchanged
pnpm lint:i18n-gate	0	✓ i18n lint gate: 0 i18n/missing-* issues
pnpm hygiene	0	✓ source hygiene clean (incl. ✓ no raw control bytes in first-party files)
pnpm hygiene:tokens	0	✓ source token ratchet clean — this change is a net reduction
pnpm build	0	✓ Build complete, Artifact: dist/objectstack.json
pnpm test	0	Test Files 163 passed (163) · Tests 3430 passed | 1 skipped (3431)

No new gate and no new test were added, per the ruling. The validate/lint warning set is byte-identical to the baseline.

验收备注

Noticed while working, filed nowhere and deliberately not swept:

• .changeset/acme-narrative-and-a-flagged-partner.md (fix(seed): reconcile the Acme narrative, and flag a non-customer #1657's changeset, still pending release) says the sentence "now names the upgrade, its real horizon and the workshop that gates the signature". After this PR its middle clause describes a state that no longer exists, and both changesets will ship in the same release. I did not edit it: PR fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715 hit the same situation — that changeset also describes lines fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715 then changed — and left it alone, so I followed the landed precedent rather than inventing a new one. If the maintainer wants pending changesets reconciled at release time, that is a release-notes decision, not a rider on this PR.
• The fix(seed): stop dating the Acme renewal from the account description #1715 comment above description opens with "The ARR line below used to read..." before stating the general rule. Its operative sentence is already general ("no date goes back into this prose"), so it covers this bullet as it stands. A future editor may want to widen its first sentence so the general rule is not read as ARR-specific — noted only; this card's scope is the one bullet, and adding a second in-file note would itself be the second-copy defect.
• The only other relative horizons left in src/data/sales.seed.ts are inside code comments (60 days ago, 80 days ago, 110 days ago at lines 266, 322, 383), not in any seeded prose string. They describe the seeded rows rather than being rendered to a user, so they are not the same defect class.
• Acme Add-on (Lost) prose says "Revisit in Q3" — a hand-typed quarter on a deal seeded daysAgo(25), and today it names the quarter the deal was lost in #1712 ("Revisit in Q3" on Acme Add-on (Lost)) and Acme Annual Renewal 2025's description says "(40 seats)" while its own line item bills 45 — and the 45 is what makes the $220K total, the contract value and the ARR line agree #1714 ("(40 seats)" on Acme Annual Renewal 2025) both live in this file and are held serial by the PM seat. Neither was touched.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hotcrm	Ignored		Sep 7, 2026 2:58pm UTC