Resolve a Channel Conflict

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current LangGraph documentation, then writes two files: the graph, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable LangGraph graph:
one Python file with a TypedDict state, a StateGraph, nodes, edges,
conditional edges and a checkpointer.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/langgraph/interrupts
    interrupt() and Command(resume=), which is how a gate stops a run
  https://reference.langchain.com/python/langgraph/graph/state/StateGraph
    StateGraph, add_edge, add_conditional_edges, defer

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN LANGGRAPH

11. A phase is a node added with `add_node`, under the phase's own name.

12. The state is a TypedDict. Each handoff key is one field on it.

13. A join is the trap. `add_edge(["a", "b"], "c")` looks right and releases
    once: when a backward edge re-enters ONE arm, the joined node never runs
    again, and the run ends early reporting success rather than raising. Mark the
    joined node `defer=True` and re-check inside it that both inbound handoffs
    exist.

14. A gate is `interrupt()` inside the node, resumed with `Command(resume=...)`.
    The platform lets anything at all call resume, so require the resumed value to
    name a person and a date and refuse anything else. Say in the fidelity note
    that this proves only that whoever resumed typed a name, because
    `Command(resume=True)` from a scheduled job is indistinguishable from a person
    signing.

15. A deviation is `add_conditional_edges` with a routing function named after
    the key in brackets.

16. Pass a durable checkpointer rather than taking the in-memory default. The
    gates wait days, and the default loses every paused run on restart.

17. Leave every phase body unimplemented, raising until somebody registers an
    implementation. The automation level is a blank, so writing a body would
    answer on the adopter's behalf whether an agent may do that work.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: resolve a channel conflict   id: <team>/resolve-a-channel-conflict   v1
from: ref/prt/resolve-a-channel-conflict v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: a partner or an account owner says the same customer deal is
         being worked by both sides
         watch: record=<conflict claim>
                system=<where conflicts are raised>
                change=<a claim is raised that one customer deal is
                being worked by both sides>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> conflicts are open at once,
             and one deal is settled by one run
goal: every conflict decided within <days> by the rule that was
      published on the claim date, signed by a named person, told to
      both sides in the same words, and readable as precedent
phases:
  take-in-claim     - human: who raised it, on which deal, against
                      whom, and what they say the rule gives them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: trigger
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  stop-approaches   - human: both sides stop contacting the customer
                      until the decision is announced, and each side
                      confirms the stop rather than being assumed to
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: take-in-claim
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  match-records     - runs collect-and-report: the partner's deal and
                      the direct deal resolved to one account record,
                      or shown to be two different customers
                      owner: account-monitor    after: stop-approaches
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  pull-records      - runs collect-and-report: the dates, the contacts,
                      the activity and every registration on both
                      sides, each line carrying the system it came from
                      owner: deal-registration-keeper
                      after: match-records
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  read-rule         - human: the conflict rule as it stood on the date
                      the claim arrived, at that version, not as it
                      reads today
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  establish-first   - runs assessment: which side was on the customer
                      first, decided on dated records rather than on
                      what either side remembers
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  test-origin       - runs assessment: whether the partner introduced
                      the customer, marked evidenced, asserted or
                      absent against <your introduction standard>
                      owner: deal-inspector     after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  hear-both         - convenes assessment: each side's account of the
                      deal in their own words, taken separately, on the
                      record, within <days> of the claim
                      owner: conflict-referee
                      after: read-rule + establish-first + test-origin
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  apply-rule        - human: the rule applied to the facts as they
                      stand, with the clause that decides it named and
                      every fact it turns on cited
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: hear-both
                      automation: <level>
  check-precedent   - runs assessment: earlier decisions under the same
                      clause, and whether this one departs from them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: apply-rule
                      automation: <level>
  sign-decision     - convenes approval: <who> signs the decision and
                      the reason as written, and a departure from
                      precedent is signed by <who> as well
                      owner: <your sales leadership role>
                      after: check-precedent
                      by: <days>                automation: never
  announce          - convenes decide-and-announce: both sides hear the
                      same decision, with the same reason, on the same
                      day, from a single written text
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: sign-decision
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  restart-deal      - human: the stop is lifted, the deal goes back to
                      the side the decision named, or to <your co-sell
                      process> when the decision is that both work it
                      owner: <your account ownership role>
                      after: announce           automation: <level>
  record-precedent  - human: the decision, the rule version, the facts
                      it turned on and the signer, written so the next
                      conflict can cite it
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: announce
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  rule-feedback     - convenes debrief: what the conflict says about
                      the rule, and whether the rule goes back to <your
                      program design process> to be rewritten
                      owner: partner-manager    after: record-precedent
                      every: <cadence>          automation: <level>
handoffs:
  take-in-claim -> stop-approaches [claim-and-contacts]: who raised it,
    on which deal, and which customer contacts are now off limits to
    both sides
  stop-approaches -> match-records [stop-confirmations]: the
    confirmation from each side that they have stopped, with the time
    each one confirmed
  match-records -> pull-records [matched-account]: the one account
    record both deals now point at, or the finding that they are two
    customers
  pull-records -> read-rule [claim-date]: the claim date, which is the
    date that decides which version of the rule applies
  pull-records -> establish-first [dated-record]: every dated line from
    both sides, with the system it was read from
  pull-records -> test-origin [introduction-evidence]: the contacts and
    the activity behind the partner's claim to have introduced the
    customer
  read-rule -> hear-both [rule-in-force]: the rule at its version, and
    the clauses this conflict actually turns on
  establish-first -> hear-both [who-was-first]: who was first on the
    record, and by how much, so both sides are asked about the same
    dates
  test-origin -> hear-both [origin-finding]: the introduction marked
    evidenced, asserted or absent, with the record behind an evidenced
    one
  hear-both -> apply-rule [both-accounts]: each side's account as
    given, and every place their accounts disagree with the record
  apply-rule -> check-precedent [draft-decision]: the decision, the
    clause behind it, and the facts it turns on
  check-precedent -> sign-decision [precedent-check]: earlier decisions
    under the same clause, and where this one departs from them
  sign-decision -> announce [signed-decision]: the signed decision and
    reason, as one text, with the signer named
  announce -> restart-deal [decision-and-lift-date]: the decision as
    both sides received it, and the date the stop lifts
  announce -> record-precedent [announced-text]: the same text, so the
    record and what the sides were told cannot differ
  restart-deal -> record-precedent [deal-restart]: which side picked
    the deal up, on what date, and what the customer was told
  record-precedent -> rule-feedback [recorded-precedent]: the decision
    as recorded, counted with the other conflicts under the same clause
deviations:
  match-records -> take-in-claim [not-the-same-customer]: the two
    records resolve to two different customers, so there is no conflict
    on the deal as claimed and the claim goes back to whoever raised it
  test-origin -> pull-records [no-introduction-on-record]: the record
    shows no introduction at all, so the records are pulled again
    before the origin is settled
  apply-rule -> pull-records [new-record-appears]: a side brings a
    record nobody had, so it goes onto the record and the rule is
    applied again to the facts as they now stand
  check-precedent -> apply-rule [precedent-differs]: the same clause
    was decided differently before, so the decision is made again
    against the earlier one
  sign-decision -> apply-rule [signer-will-not-sign]: the signer will
    not sign the reason as written, so the reason is rewritten by the
    referee and goes back through the check against precedent
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the account owner, the partner
           lead, and the sales leader who signs the decision>
  systems: the CRM (read), the registration record (read),
           the partner record (read), the activity record (read),
           the decision record (write), the notification channel
           (write)
  data:    the conflict rule at the version in force on the claim date,
           the partner agreement at its signed version, <your
           introduction standard>, the earlier decisions under each
           clause, <your account hierarchy>
policy:
  both sides stop approaching the customer within <hours> of the claim,
    and an approach made after that is recorded against the side that
    made it
  the rule that decides the conflict is the one published on the date
    the claim arrived, and a rule changed since then does not reach
    back
  a claim with no dated record behind it loses to one that has dated
    records, whatever either side says happened
  the decision is signed by a named person and is never made by an
    agent
  both sides hear the same words on the same day, and neither side is
    told first
  a decision that departs from an earlier decision under the same
    clause says so and is signed by <who>
  a conflict is decided within <days>. A conflict still open after
    <days> is escalated to <who>, and the stop stays in force
  the customer is never told the two sides are in dispute
measures:
  cycle time: <days> from the claim to both sides being told
  coverage: <share> of decisions citing the rule version and the facts
            they turned on
  volume: <conflicts per period>, counted by clause
  quality gate: no decision without a signature, and no clause
                producing more than <n> conflicts per period without
                going back for a rewrite
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current Agent Framework documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable Microsoft Agent Framework workflow:
one Python file with Executor classes, a WorkflowBuilder, typed edges,
request_info gates and durable checkpoint storage.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/human-in-the-loop
    ctx.request_info, @response_handler, and answering a parked run later
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/checkpoints
    what a checkpoint holds, and allowed_checkpoint_types
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/edges
    add_edge with condition, add_fan_in_edges, add_switch_case_edge_group
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/state
    ctx.set_state and ctx.get_state as they actually are today

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN MICROSOFT AGENT FRAMEWORK

11. Write for Python, and read those pages before writing a line. This API has
    moved: `set_shared_state`, `RequestInfoExecutor`, `RequestInfoMessage` and
    `send_responses_streaming` are all in the training data and none of them exist
    any more. The .NET workflow API differs in kind rather than in spelling, so a
    file written for one does not port by renaming.

12. A phase is a class deriving from `Executor` whose `super().__init__(id=...)`
    takes the phase name verbatim. The id is not cosmetic: a checkpoint stores a
    signature over the topology and the executor ids, so an id built from a run, a
    timestamp or a counter cannot be resumed into.

13. Give each phase a `@handler` method and move work on with
    `await ctx.send_message(...)`. A handler that returns without sending is a dead
    end: the branch stops, the run converges, and it reports success. So a phase
    you are deliberately leaving unimplemented must still send a placeholder
    onward. Do not stub with `raise NotImplementedError`, which fails the run
    instead of leaving it runnable.

14. `after: a` is `builder.add_edge(a, b)`. `after: a + b` is
    `builder.add_fan_in_edges([a, b], target)`, and the target's handler must be
    annotated `list[T]`, because a fan-in delivers one aggregated list rather than
    the separate messages. A handler typed for the single value is dropped as a
    mismatch with nothing raised.

15. The join is the trap here, and it is the opposite of LangGraph's. The
    barrier re-arms: it clears its buffer when it fires and then demands a fresh
    message from every source. So a deviation that re-enters ONE arm parks the
    run forever waiting for an arm that will not run again, and the workflow ends
    IDLE reporting success. Wherever a deviation re-enters one arm of a join,
    replace the barrier with an ordinary edge from each arm into a small executor
    that records each arrival with `ctx.set_state` and only forwards when every
    expected key is present, and say in a comment that putting `add_fan_in_edges`
    back reintroduces the stall.

16. A phase that is both a join target and a deviation target needs two
    handlers, one annotated `list[T]` for the barrier and one annotated `T` for the
    backward message. Write only the list handler and every backward edge into it
    is discarded as a type mismatch, silently.

17. `automation: never` is `await ctx.request_info(request_data=...,
    response_type=...)` inside the phase, answered by a `@response_handler` on the
    same executor whose annotations match those exact types. The run parks at
    `IDLE_WITH_PENDING_REQUESTS` and the host answers with
    `workflow.run(stream=True, responses={request_id: value})`. If no handler
    matches the pair, the framework logs a warning and parks anyway, so the gate
    reads as working right up until somebody asks why the approval did not take.

18. A gate is only a gate if the wait survives a restart, so pass
    `checkpoint_storage=FileCheckpointStorage(...)` to the builder. Checkpointing
    is off by default and `InMemoryCheckpointStorage` reads as configured while
    persisting nothing. Register every handoff payload type in
    `allowed_checkpoint_types`, or the first restore raises. Anything an executor
    keeps as an instance attribute is absent after a restore unless you export it
    from `on_checkpoint_save` and read it back in `on_checkpoint_restore`, and it
    comes back empty rather than missing.

19. Each line under `deviations:` is `builder.add_edge(source, earlier,
    condition=fn)` with `fn` named after the key. Cycles are legal and unchecked,
    but raise `max_iterations` well above its default of 100, because several live
    cycles will exhaust a budget sized for a straight line and fail with a message
    about convergence that reads like a broken graph. Keep the ordinary forward
    edge unconditional and add each deviation beside it: a condition that returns
    false is dropped with no event, so a forward path expressed as a condition
    dies silently on every normal run, which is most of them.

20. Handoff values go in `ctx.set_state(key, value)` and come back from
    `ctx.get_state(key)`, untyped and unchecked. A write is visible to its writer
    at once and to everyone else only in the next superstep, and two writers of one
    key in a superstep keep the last write. Never read a key in the same superstep
    another phase wrote it.

21. There are no timers, no deadlines and no scheduled wakes. Nothing in
    `run-scoped:` becomes an executor and `by:` has no expression at all, so write
    them as comments naming where they start and stop, and say plainly in the
    fidelity note that a run can close over an unfinished run-scoped line. Do not
    fake a deadline with a sleep inside a handler, which blocks the whole superstep
    barrier, and never let an expiring wait release a gate.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: resolve a channel conflict   id: <team>/resolve-a-channel-conflict   v1
from: ref/prt/resolve-a-channel-conflict v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: a partner or an account owner says the same customer deal is
         being worked by both sides
         watch: record=<conflict claim>
                system=<where conflicts are raised>
                change=<a claim is raised that one customer deal is
                being worked by both sides>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> conflicts are open at once,
             and one deal is settled by one run
goal: every conflict decided within <days> by the rule that was
      published on the claim date, signed by a named person, told to
      both sides in the same words, and readable as precedent
phases:
  take-in-claim     - human: who raised it, on which deal, against
                      whom, and what they say the rule gives them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: trigger
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  stop-approaches   - human: both sides stop contacting the customer
                      until the decision is announced, and each side
                      confirms the stop rather than being assumed to
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: take-in-claim
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  match-records     - runs collect-and-report: the partner's deal and
                      the direct deal resolved to one account record,
                      or shown to be two different customers
                      owner: account-monitor    after: stop-approaches
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  pull-records      - runs collect-and-report: the dates, the contacts,
                      the activity and every registration on both
                      sides, each line carrying the system it came from
                      owner: deal-registration-keeper
                      after: match-records
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  read-rule         - human: the conflict rule as it stood on the date
                      the claim arrived, at that version, not as it
                      reads today
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  establish-first   - runs assessment: which side was on the customer
                      first, decided on dated records rather than on
                      what either side remembers
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  test-origin       - runs assessment: whether the partner introduced
                      the customer, marked evidenced, asserted or
                      absent against <your introduction standard>
                      owner: deal-inspector     after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  hear-both         - convenes assessment: each side's account of the
                      deal in their own words, taken separately, on the
                      record, within <days> of the claim
                      owner: conflict-referee
                      after: read-rule + establish-first + test-origin
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  apply-rule        - human: the rule applied to the facts as they
                      stand, with the clause that decides it named and
                      every fact it turns on cited
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: hear-both
                      automation: <level>
  check-precedent   - runs assessment: earlier decisions under the same
                      clause, and whether this one departs from them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: apply-rule
                      automation: <level>
  sign-decision     - convenes approval: <who> signs the decision and
                      the reason as written, and a departure from
                      precedent is signed by <who> as well
                      owner: <your sales leadership role>
                      after: check-precedent
                      by: <days>                automation: never
  announce          - convenes decide-and-announce: both sides hear the
                      same decision, with the same reason, on the same
                      day, from a single written text
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: sign-decision
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  restart-deal      - human: the stop is lifted, the deal goes back to
                      the side the decision named, or to <your co-sell
                      process> when the decision is that both work it
                      owner: <your account ownership role>
                      after: announce           automation: <level>
  record-precedent  - human: the decision, the rule version, the facts
                      it turned on and the signer, written so the next
                      conflict can cite it
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: announce
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  rule-feedback     - convenes debrief: what the conflict says about
                      the rule, and whether the rule goes back to <your
                      program design process> to be rewritten
                      owner: partner-manager    after: record-precedent
                      every: <cadence>          automation: <level>
handoffs:
  take-in-claim -> stop-approaches [claim-and-contacts]: who raised it,
    on which deal, and which customer contacts are now off limits to
    both sides
  stop-approaches -> match-records [stop-confirmations]: the
    confirmation from each side that they have stopped, with the time
    each one confirmed
  match-records -> pull-records [matched-account]: the one account
    record both deals now point at, or the finding that they are two
    customers
  pull-records -> read-rule [claim-date]: the claim date, which is the
    date that decides which version of the rule applies
  pull-records -> establish-first [dated-record]: every dated line from
    both sides, with the system it was read from
  pull-records -> test-origin [introduction-evidence]: the contacts and
    the activity behind the partner's claim to have introduced the
    customer
  read-rule -> hear-both [rule-in-force]: the rule at its version, and
    the clauses this conflict actually turns on
  establish-first -> hear-both [who-was-first]: who was first on the
    record, and by how much, so both sides are asked about the same
    dates
  test-origin -> hear-both [origin-finding]: the introduction marked
    evidenced, asserted or absent, with the record behind an evidenced
    one
  hear-both -> apply-rule [both-accounts]: each side's account as
    given, and every place their accounts disagree with the record
  apply-rule -> check-precedent [draft-decision]: the decision, the
    clause behind it, and the facts it turns on
  check-precedent -> sign-decision [precedent-check]: earlier decisions
    under the same clause, and where this one departs from them
  sign-decision -> announce [signed-decision]: the signed decision and
    reason, as one text, with the signer named
  announce -> restart-deal [decision-and-lift-date]: the decision as
    both sides received it, and the date the stop lifts
  announce -> record-precedent [announced-text]: the same text, so the
    record and what the sides were told cannot differ
  restart-deal -> record-precedent [deal-restart]: which side picked
    the deal up, on what date, and what the customer was told
  record-precedent -> rule-feedback [recorded-precedent]: the decision
    as recorded, counted with the other conflicts under the same clause
deviations:
  match-records -> take-in-claim [not-the-same-customer]: the two
    records resolve to two different customers, so there is no conflict
    on the deal as claimed and the claim goes back to whoever raised it
  test-origin -> pull-records [no-introduction-on-record]: the record
    shows no introduction at all, so the records are pulled again
    before the origin is settled
  apply-rule -> pull-records [new-record-appears]: a side brings a
    record nobody had, so it goes onto the record and the rule is
    applied again to the facts as they now stand
  check-precedent -> apply-rule [precedent-differs]: the same clause
    was decided differently before, so the decision is made again
    against the earlier one
  sign-decision -> apply-rule [signer-will-not-sign]: the signer will
    not sign the reason as written, so the reason is rewritten by the
    referee and goes back through the check against precedent
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the account owner, the partner
           lead, and the sales leader who signs the decision>
  systems: the CRM (read), the registration record (read),
           the partner record (read), the activity record (read),
           the decision record (write), the notification channel
           (write)
  data:    the conflict rule at the version in force on the claim date,
           the partner agreement at its signed version, <your
           introduction standard>, the earlier decisions under each
           clause, <your account hierarchy>
policy:
  both sides stop approaching the customer within <hours> of the claim,
    and an approach made after that is recorded against the side that
    made it
  the rule that decides the conflict is the one published on the date
    the claim arrived, and a rule changed since then does not reach
    back
  a claim with no dated record behind it loses to one that has dated
    records, whatever either side says happened
  the decision is signed by a named person and is never made by an
    agent
  both sides hear the same words on the same day, and neither side is
    told first
  a decision that departs from an earlier decision under the same
    clause says so and is signed by <who>
  a conflict is decided within <days>. A conflict still open after
    <days> is escalated to <who>, and the stop stays in force
  the customer is never told the two sides are in dispute
measures:
  cycle time: <days> from the claim to both sides being told
  coverage: <share> of decisions citing the rule version and the facts
            they turned on
  volume: <conflicts per period>, counted by clause
  quality gate: no decision without a signature, and no clause
                producing more than <n> conflicts per period without
                going back for a rewrite
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current CrewAI documentation, then writes two files: the flow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable CrewAI Flow:
one Python file with a Pydantic state model, one Flow subclass, @start,
@listen, @router and a durable human feedback provider.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://docs.crewai.com/en/concepts/flows
    Flow, @start, @listen, @router, and_, or_, state, kickoff, plot
  https://docs.crewai.com/en/learn/human-feedback-in-flows
    @human_feedback, the provider protocol, from_pending and resume
  https://docs.crewai.com/en/guides/flows/mastering-flow-state
    @persist and what persistence actually promises, which is less than it sounds

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN CREWAI FLOWS

11. Build a Flow, not a Crew. A Crew is a team of roles with no graph, no join,
    no persistence handle and no gate, and cannot express this document at all.
    Each phase is one method on a single `Flow` subclass, keeping its name with
    hyphens turned into underscores. A phase that genuinely needs role-based agents
    builds its own Crew inside its own method body, and the Flow stays the graph.

12. Declare the state as a Pydantic model bound as the type parameter,
    `class NegotiateTheAgreement(Flow[NegotiationState])`, and read and write
    `self.state.field`. Never use the untyped dict form: the handoff keys are this
    process's memory, and an untyped dict turns a misspelt key into a handoff that
    is silently absent. Keep the auto-injected `id` field, which is what every
    resume depends on.

13. `after: a` is `@listen(a)`. `after: a + b` is `@listen(and_(a, b))`. Never
    write `or_` where the document writes `+`.

14. Check every inbound handoff at the top of the method and raise if one is
    missing. `@listen` says when a method may run and says nothing about what is
    in hand when it does.

15. The join is the trap, and it is proven rather than theoretical. `and_()`
    empties its accumulator the moment it fires, so re-entering BOTH arms works
    forever, and re-entering ONE arm after it has fired leaves it holding a single
    trigger and waiting for the other for good. The cascade drains, CrewAI prints
    that the flow completed, and `kickoff()` returns normally. So for any joining
    phase that a deviation can send work back into, do not use `and_()` at all:
    make the join a `@router` that both arms trigger, which reads the state fields
    and emits its label only when every inbound handoff is present. A router is
    re-evaluated against durable state every time and is never suppressed by the
    once-fired set.

16. Do not write a phase as `@listen(or_(and_(a, b), "some_label"))`. There is
    one accumulator per listener, shared across every branch of its condition and
    wiped when any branch satisfies, so the label firing while the join is half
    full erases the arm that had already arrived.

17. `automation: never` is `@human_feedback(message=..., provider=...)` stacked
    under the method's `@listen`, with a provider whose `request_feedback` raises
    `HumanFeedbackPending`. The run then persists, returns that object from
    `kickoff()`, and a different process answers later with `from_pending(flow_id,
    persistence)` and `resume(text)`. Do not take the default `ConsoleProvider`,
    which calls `input()`: that gate exists only while somebody is watching a
    terminal, and a run started by a scheduler either hangs or takes an empty
    string.

18. Silence must not approve, and the platform's default is that it does. With
    `emit=[...]` set, an empty resume collapses to `default_outcome`, or to the
    first label when that is unset, with no model consulted and nobody named. Treat
    an empty or unrecognised answer as a refusal in your own router. And write the
    approver's name and the time onto the state yourself, because
    `HumanFeedbackResult` carries the text, the outcome and a timestamp but has no
    field for the person, which the specification requires.

19. Each line under `deviations:` is a `@router` named after the key, returning
    a label named after the same key, with the target subscribing as
    `@listen(or_(normal_trigger, "the_label"))`. Route rather than listen
    directly, because a router is re-evaluated on every cycle while a top-level
    `or_` listener is suppressed after it first fires.

20. An exception edge is a `try` and `except` around the failing phase's body,
    recording the failure on the state and emitting an exception label from a
    router. Wiring it as `@listen(or_(x, y))` fires when those phases SUCCEED, so
    the clearing phase would run on every healthy run.

21. An unimplemented phase is a method with the document's own sentence as its
    docstring and a bare `pass`, which is safe because listeners still fire on a
    `None` return. An unimplemented `@router` is not safe: returning `None` emits
    no label, every phase below it disappears from the run including the gates, and
    the flow reports success. A stub router must return a hard-coded label with a
    TODO beside it, or raise.

22. Turn persistence on with `@persist(SQLiteFlowPersistence(...))`, then treat
    every phase that performs a real act as something that will run twice.
    Persistence saves the state fields and nothing else, so a restart rehydrates
    the data and runs the graph again from `@start`: a flow that had already sent a
    written refusal sends a second one. Guard each acting phase with a state field
    it checks and sets.

23. There are no timers, no deadlines and no cadences, and `run-scoped:` has no
    counterpart at all. Put each `by:` value as a named constant, name the
    run-scoped lines in the module docstring as unimplemented obligations, and say
    in the fidelity note that no deadline in this document is enforced by anything.
    These absences produce no diagnostic whatsoever, which is exactly why they have
    to be written down.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: resolve a channel conflict   id: <team>/resolve-a-channel-conflict   v1
from: ref/prt/resolve-a-channel-conflict v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: a partner or an account owner says the same customer deal is
         being worked by both sides
         watch: record=<conflict claim>
                system=<where conflicts are raised>
                change=<a claim is raised that one customer deal is
                being worked by both sides>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> conflicts are open at once,
             and one deal is settled by one run
goal: every conflict decided within <days> by the rule that was
      published on the claim date, signed by a named person, told to
      both sides in the same words, and readable as precedent
phases:
  take-in-claim     - human: who raised it, on which deal, against
                      whom, and what they say the rule gives them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: trigger
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  stop-approaches   - human: both sides stop contacting the customer
                      until the decision is announced, and each side
                      confirms the stop rather than being assumed to
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: take-in-claim
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  match-records     - runs collect-and-report: the partner's deal and
                      the direct deal resolved to one account record,
                      or shown to be two different customers
                      owner: account-monitor    after: stop-approaches
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  pull-records      - runs collect-and-report: the dates, the contacts,
                      the activity and every registration on both
                      sides, each line carrying the system it came from
                      owner: deal-registration-keeper
                      after: match-records
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  read-rule         - human: the conflict rule as it stood on the date
                      the claim arrived, at that version, not as it
                      reads today
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  establish-first   - runs assessment: which side was on the customer
                      first, decided on dated records rather than on
                      what either side remembers
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  test-origin       - runs assessment: whether the partner introduced
                      the customer, marked evidenced, asserted or
                      absent against <your introduction standard>
                      owner: deal-inspector     after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  hear-both         - convenes assessment: each side's account of the
                      deal in their own words, taken separately, on the
                      record, within <days> of the claim
                      owner: conflict-referee
                      after: read-rule + establish-first + test-origin
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  apply-rule        - human: the rule applied to the facts as they
                      stand, with the clause that decides it named and
                      every fact it turns on cited
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: hear-both
                      automation: <level>
  check-precedent   - runs assessment: earlier decisions under the same
                      clause, and whether this one departs from them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: apply-rule
                      automation: <level>
  sign-decision     - convenes approval: <who> signs the decision and
                      the reason as written, and a departure from
                      precedent is signed by <who> as well
                      owner: <your sales leadership role>
                      after: check-precedent
                      by: <days>                automation: never
  announce          - convenes decide-and-announce: both sides hear the
                      same decision, with the same reason, on the same
                      day, from a single written text
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: sign-decision
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  restart-deal      - human: the stop is lifted, the deal goes back to
                      the side the decision named, or to <your co-sell
                      process> when the decision is that both work it
                      owner: <your account ownership role>
                      after: announce           automation: <level>
  record-precedent  - human: the decision, the rule version, the facts
                      it turned on and the signer, written so the next
                      conflict can cite it
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: announce
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  rule-feedback     - convenes debrief: what the conflict says about
                      the rule, and whether the rule goes back to <your
                      program design process> to be rewritten
                      owner: partner-manager    after: record-precedent
                      every: <cadence>          automation: <level>
handoffs:
  take-in-claim -> stop-approaches [claim-and-contacts]: who raised it,
    on which deal, and which customer contacts are now off limits to
    both sides
  stop-approaches -> match-records [stop-confirmations]: the
    confirmation from each side that they have stopped, with the time
    each one confirmed
  match-records -> pull-records [matched-account]: the one account
    record both deals now point at, or the finding that they are two
    customers
  pull-records -> read-rule [claim-date]: the claim date, which is the
    date that decides which version of the rule applies
  pull-records -> establish-first [dated-record]: every dated line from
    both sides, with the system it was read from
  pull-records -> test-origin [introduction-evidence]: the contacts and
    the activity behind the partner's claim to have introduced the
    customer
  read-rule -> hear-both [rule-in-force]: the rule at its version, and
    the clauses this conflict actually turns on
  establish-first -> hear-both [who-was-first]: who was first on the
    record, and by how much, so both sides are asked about the same
    dates
  test-origin -> hear-both [origin-finding]: the introduction marked
    evidenced, asserted or absent, with the record behind an evidenced
    one
  hear-both -> apply-rule [both-accounts]: each side's account as
    given, and every place their accounts disagree with the record
  apply-rule -> check-precedent [draft-decision]: the decision, the
    clause behind it, and the facts it turns on
  check-precedent -> sign-decision [precedent-check]: earlier decisions
    under the same clause, and where this one departs from them
  sign-decision -> announce [signed-decision]: the signed decision and
    reason, as one text, with the signer named
  announce -> restart-deal [decision-and-lift-date]: the decision as
    both sides received it, and the date the stop lifts
  announce -> record-precedent [announced-text]: the same text, so the
    record and what the sides were told cannot differ
  restart-deal -> record-precedent [deal-restart]: which side picked
    the deal up, on what date, and what the customer was told
  record-precedent -> rule-feedback [recorded-precedent]: the decision
    as recorded, counted with the other conflicts under the same clause
deviations:
  match-records -> take-in-claim [not-the-same-customer]: the two
    records resolve to two different customers, so there is no conflict
    on the deal as claimed and the claim goes back to whoever raised it
  test-origin -> pull-records [no-introduction-on-record]: the record
    shows no introduction at all, so the records are pulled again
    before the origin is settled
  apply-rule -> pull-records [new-record-appears]: a side brings a
    record nobody had, so it goes onto the record and the rule is
    applied again to the facts as they now stand
  check-precedent -> apply-rule [precedent-differs]: the same clause
    was decided differently before, so the decision is made again
    against the earlier one
  sign-decision -> apply-rule [signer-will-not-sign]: the signer will
    not sign the reason as written, so the reason is rewritten by the
    referee and goes back through the check against precedent
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the account owner, the partner
           lead, and the sales leader who signs the decision>
  systems: the CRM (read), the registration record (read),
           the partner record (read), the activity record (read),
           the decision record (write), the notification channel
           (write)
  data:    the conflict rule at the version in force on the claim date,
           the partner agreement at its signed version, <your
           introduction standard>, the earlier decisions under each
           clause, <your account hierarchy>
policy:
  both sides stop approaching the customer within <hours> of the claim,
    and an approach made after that is recorded against the side that
    made it
  the rule that decides the conflict is the one published on the date
    the claim arrived, and a rule changed since then does not reach
    back
  a claim with no dated record behind it loses to one that has dated
    records, whatever either side says happened
  the decision is signed by a named person and is never made by an
    agent
  both sides hear the same words on the same day, and neither side is
    told first
  a decision that departs from an earlier decision under the same
    clause says so and is signed by <who>
  a conflict is decided within <days>. A conflict still open after
    <days> is escalated to <who>, and the stop stays in force
  the customer is never told the two sides are in dispute
measures:
  cycle time: <days> from the claim to both sides being told
  coverage: <share> of decisions citing the rule version and the facts
            they turned on
  volume: <conflicts per period>, counted by clause
  quality gate: no decision without a signature, and no clause
                producing more than <n> conflicts per period without
                going back for a rewrite
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current ADK documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable Google ADK workflow:
one Python file with a Workflow, nodes, routed edges, a JoinNode,
RequestInput gates and a persisting session service.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://adk.dev/graphs/routes/
    nodes, tuple chains, Event(route=), JoinNode, back-edges
  https://adk.dev/graphs/human-input/
    RequestInput and the rerun_on_resume handoff
  https://adk.dev/runtime/resume/
    ResumabilityConfig, resuming by invocation id, at-least-once tools
  https://adk.dev/graphs/data-handling/
    Event.output against state, and the selector syntax in instructions

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN GOOGLE ADK

11. Build a `Workflow` from `google.adk.workflow`, and pin `google-adk>=2.0` in
    a comment. Do not use `SequentialAgent`, `ParallelAgent` or `LoopAgent`: they
    are deprecated in favour of the graph, and they carry their own defects around
    state and control flow. The documentation moved to adk.dev, and anything you
    remember about nesting agents rather than drawing a graph is out of date.

12. Each phase is one node keeping its name. Take the node kind from how the
    phase resolves rather than from taste: a `human:` or `system:` phase is a plain
    Python function node, and a `runs` or `convenes` phase is an `Agent`.

13. `after:` gives the edges, written as tuple chains in `edges=[...]`, and the
    trigger is the `"START"` keyword. Take the order only from `after:` lines and
    never from the order the phases are listed in.

14. `after: a + b` is a `JoinNode`, and it must be guarded, because this is the
    worst trap of any runtime here. The join fires when every static predecessor is
    marked COMPLETED, nothing ever un-completes a node, and stored outputs are
    never cleared. So after a deviation re-runs one arm, the join fires the instant
    that arm finishes and hands the next phase LAST PASS'S value for every arm that
    did not re-run. It does not stall, it proceeds with stale data, and nothing
    logs. Stamp each arm's output with a pass counter or a content hash, and have
    the phase after the join compare the stamps and refuse to run when they
    disagree.

15. Each line under `deviations:` is a routed back-edge: a router after the
    phase on the left returning `Event(route=...)`, named after the key in
    brackets, with one arm going back to the phase on the right and one going
    forward. An unconditional cycle raises at construction, which is the one place
    this model checks your work. Nothing budgets a routed cycle, so add your own
    count and stop rather than looping forever.

16. Give every router an explicit `DEFAULT_ROUTE` arm, and route it to a phase
    that stops and asks a person. A route value matching no key writes a log
    warning, ends that branch, and lets the run finish reporting success with the
    rest of the process never having happened.

17. `automation: never` is a `RequestInput` node of its own, never an `Agent`
    asking a question. Decorate it `@node(rerun_on_resume=False)` and yield
    `RequestInput(message=..., payload=..., response_schema=...)`, so the run
    stops, persists, and delivers the person's answer to the node's successor as
    its typed input. A resumed workflow runs its tools at least once, so any
    irreversible act needs its own duplicate guard.

18. Make the gates durable or say plainly that they are not. Wrap the graph in
    `App(..., resumability_config=ResumabilityConfig(is_resumable=True))` and pass
    a persisting session service, never the in-memory one. Note in the file that
    the command line and the web UI cannot resume a run, so whoever releases these
    gates needs an operator surface that somebody has to write.

19. Every `Agent` in the graph gets `mode="single_turn"` and no `sub_agents`.
    A non-empty `sub_agents` list silently adds a transfer tool, and a model that
    uses it runs a different agent in this node's place while the graph's outgoing
    edge fires on schedule regardless: the topology is honoured perfectly and the
    work belongs to somebody else.

20. Model failure as a route, not as an exception. A node that raises does not
    propagate: the failure is caught, recorded, and shuts the workflow down without
    raising to the caller. So a phase that can fail catches its own failure and
    returns `Event(route="could-not-finish")`, and the exception phase hangs off
    that arm.

21. Keep every blank as a named module-level constant and never interpolate one
    into an `instruction=` string. Angle brackets and curly braces are ADK's own
    data selector syntax inside instructions, so a blank pasted verbatim stops
    being a blank and becomes a selector.

22. `by:` and `not-before:` have no expression, and `@node(timeout=)` is not
    one: it is an in-process wall clock that cancels the node and, because failures
    are swallowed, ends the run silently rather than recording a missed deadline.
    Nothing in `run-scoped:` has an expression either, and it must not be faked as
    an ordinary node, because a node has to be reached and has to finish before
    anything downstream starts, which is the opposite of what those lines mean.
    Leave both out of the graph and name them in the fidelity note.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: resolve a channel conflict   id: <team>/resolve-a-channel-conflict   v1
from: ref/prt/resolve-a-channel-conflict v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: a partner or an account owner says the same customer deal is
         being worked by both sides
         watch: record=<conflict claim>
                system=<where conflicts are raised>
                change=<a claim is raised that one customer deal is
                being worked by both sides>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> conflicts are open at once,
             and one deal is settled by one run
goal: every conflict decided within <days> by the rule that was
      published on the claim date, signed by a named person, told to
      both sides in the same words, and readable as precedent
phases:
  take-in-claim     - human: who raised it, on which deal, against
                      whom, and what they say the rule gives them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: trigger
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  stop-approaches   - human: both sides stop contacting the customer
                      until the decision is announced, and each side
                      confirms the stop rather than being assumed to
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: take-in-claim
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  match-records     - runs collect-and-report: the partner's deal and
                      the direct deal resolved to one account record,
                      or shown to be two different customers
                      owner: account-monitor    after: stop-approaches
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  pull-records      - runs collect-and-report: the dates, the contacts,
                      the activity and every registration on both
                      sides, each line carrying the system it came from
                      owner: deal-registration-keeper
                      after: match-records
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  read-rule         - human: the conflict rule as it stood on the date
                      the claim arrived, at that version, not as it
                      reads today
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  establish-first   - runs assessment: which side was on the customer
                      first, decided on dated records rather than on
                      what either side remembers
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  test-origin       - runs assessment: whether the partner introduced
                      the customer, marked evidenced, asserted or
                      absent against <your introduction standard>
                      owner: deal-inspector     after: pull-records
                      automation: <level>
  hear-both         - convenes assessment: each side's account of the
                      deal in their own words, taken separately, on the
                      record, within <days> of the claim
                      owner: conflict-referee
                      after: read-rule + establish-first + test-origin
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  apply-rule        - human: the rule applied to the facts as they
                      stand, with the clause that decides it named and
                      every fact it turns on cited
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: hear-both
                      automation: <level>
  check-precedent   - runs assessment: earlier decisions under the same
                      clause, and whether this one departs from them
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: apply-rule
                      automation: <level>
  sign-decision     - convenes approval: <who> signs the decision and
                      the reason as written, and a departure from
                      precedent is signed by <who> as well
                      owner: <your sales leadership role>
                      after: check-precedent
                      by: <days>                automation: never
  announce          - convenes decide-and-announce: both sides hear the
                      same decision, with the same reason, on the same
                      day, from a single written text
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: sign-decision
                      by: <hours>               automation: <level>
  restart-deal      - human: the stop is lifted, the deal goes back to
                      the side the decision named, or to <your co-sell
                      process> when the decision is that both work it
                      owner: <your account ownership role>
                      after: announce           automation: <level>
  record-precedent  - human: the decision, the rule version, the facts
                      it turned on and the signer, written so the next
                      conflict can cite it
                      owner: conflict-referee   after: announce
                      by: <days>                automation: <level>
  rule-feedback     - convenes debrief: what the conflict says about
                      the rule, and whether the rule goes back to <your
                      program design process> to be rewritten
                      owner: partner-manager    after: record-precedent
                      every: <cadence>          automation: <level>
handoffs:
  take-in-claim -> stop-approaches [claim-and-contacts]: who raised it,
    on which deal, and which customer contacts are now off limits to
    both sides
  stop-approaches -> match-records [stop-confirmations]: the
    confirmation from each side that they have stopped, with the time
    each one confirmed
  match-records -> pull-records [matched-account]: the one account
    record both deals now point at, or the finding that they are two
    customers
  pull-records -> read-rule [claim-date]: the claim date, which is the
    date that decides which version of the rule applies
  pull-records -> establish-first [dated-record]: every dated line from
    both sides, with the system it was read from
  pull-records -> test-origin [introduction-evidence]: the contacts and
    the activity behind the partner's claim to have introduced the
    customer
  read-rule -> hear-both [rule-in-force]: the rule at its version, and
    the clauses this conflict actually turns on
  establish-first -> hear-both [who-was-first]: who was first on the
    record, and by how much, so both sides are asked about the same
    dates
  test-origin -> hear-both [origin-finding]: the introduction marked
    evidenced, asserted or absent, with the record behind an evidenced
    one
  hear-both -> apply-rule [both-accounts]: each side's account as
    given, and every place their accounts disagree with the record
  apply-rule -> check-precedent [draft-decision]: the decision, the
    clause behind it, and the facts it turns on
  check-precedent -> sign-decision [precedent-check]: earlier decisions
    under the same clause, and where this one departs from them
  sign-decision -> announce [signed-decision]: the signed decision and
    reason, as one text, with the signer named
  announce -> restart-deal [decision-and-lift-date]: the decision as
    both sides received it, and the date the stop lifts
  announce -> record-precedent [announced-text]: the same text, so the
    record and what the sides were told cannot differ
  restart-deal -> record-precedent [deal-restart]: which side picked
    the deal up, on what date, and what the customer was told
  record-precedent -> rule-feedback [recorded-precedent]: the decision
    as recorded, counted with the other conflicts under the same clause
deviations:
  match-records -> take-in-claim [not-the-same-customer]: the two
    records resolve to two different customers, so there is no conflict
    on the deal as claimed and the claim goes back to whoever raised it
  test-origin -> pull-records [no-introduction-on-record]: the record
    shows no introduction at all, so the records are pulled again
    before the origin is settled
  apply-rule -> pull-records [new-record-appears]: a side brings a
    record nobody had, so it goes onto the record and the rule is
    applied again to the facts as they now stand
  check-precedent -> apply-rule [precedent-differs]: the same clause
    was decided differently before, so the decision is made again
    against the earlier one
  sign-decision -> apply-rule [signer-will-not-sign]: the signer will
    not sign the reason as written, so the reason is rewritten by the
    referee and goes back through the check against precedent
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the account owner, the partner
           lead, and the sales leader who signs the decision>
  systems: the CRM (read), the registration record (read),
           the partner record (read), the activity record (read),
           the decision record (write), the notification channel
           (write)
  data:    the conflict rule at the version in force on the claim date,
           the partner agreement at its signed version, <your
           introduction standard>, the earlier decisions under each
           clause, <your account hierarchy>
policy:
  both sides stop approaching the customer within <hours> of the claim,
    and an approach made after that is recorded against the side that
    made it
  the rule that decides the conflict is the one published on the date
    the claim arrived, and a rule changed since then does not reach
    back
  a claim with no dated record behind it loses to one that has dated
    records, whatever either side says happened
  the decision is signed by a named person and is never made by an
    agent
  both sides hear the same words on the same day, and neither side is
    told first
  a decision that departs from an earlier decision under the same
    clause says so and is signed by <who>
  a conflict is decided within <days>. A conflict still open after
    <days> is escalated to <who>, and the stop stays in force
  the customer is never told the two sides are in dispute
measures:
  cycle time: <days> from the claim to both sides being told
  coverage: <share> of decisions citing the rule version and the facts
            they turned on
  volume: <conflicts per period>, counted by clause
  quality gate: no decision without a signature, and no clause
                producing more than <n> conflicts per period without
                going back for a rewrite
```