Onboarding & GSA Scoping

Answers to the seven scoping questions for the onboarding and GSA-contract-limit rebuild, drawn from the SeedTrust meeting record and the current prototype. Each question’s label says whether there’s a decision to build to — and where the prototype will mislead you. ✓ marks answers since confirmed by SeedTrust ops (Kristine Hindman, 2026-07-13).

How to read the status labels

Label	Meaning
Decided	A team decision exists — build to it.
Decided · update prototype	A decision exists and the current mockup contradicts it. Build to the decision, not the mockup.
Open / deferred	No decision yet — needs a dedicated conversation before building.

Read first — what changed from the prototype

• Case-manager search is email-first, not agency-first (Q10).
• Insurance-card & payment-method leave case-opening (Q11).
• Duplicate handling is “detect & warn,” never merge (Q2).

Q1 — Match-sheet parsing

Status — Decided ✓

Answer: OCR-first parse with an AI fallback for non-standard layouts; the editable review is the confirmed low-confidence fallback. As of 2026-06-25 the match sheet is uploaded at the start of onboarding and parsed to pre-fill the case.

• [2026-06-25] Upload moves to the start; the confirm step must tolerate missing fields and flag required ones (“templates differ by agency”). Required fields trimmed to name / email / address (address blocks the case; DOB lives on the IP; phone optional; drop gender / orientation / relationship status).
• [2026-01-21 · Christine] Their internal sheet is “a rare case”; store unmatched agency fields as a blob; the IP language field is required (it selects the email template); attorney fields are not required.
• [2026-01-26] Handwritten sheets (~1 in 100) won’t OCR → manual entry; ~95% automation is acceptable.
• [2026-01-21 · Christine] Offered ~20 agency match sheets as samples.

In the prototype

Parsing is fully mocked (a 2-second fill that ignores the file and case type) and there is no per-field confidence — but the editable review UI itself is real and complete. Egg vs. surrogacy has no parsing difference yet. Open the case-creation wizard →

Confirmed · Kristine, Ops · 2026-07-13

“The layouts are extremely variable across agencies. The review will have to be the fallback, and I’d be okay with coloring/symbols for low/high confidence matches. I can send as many match sheets as you need.”

→ Build confidence as color/symbol, not a % score (AI percentage badges were dropped 2026-06-09).

Still open: an egg-donation sample set; OCR-vs-LLM specifics.

Q2 — Duplicate detection & merge

Status — Decided · update prototype

Answer: Detect & warn — don’t merge, never hard-block. The prototype’s “Merge with Existing / % match” screen is a mock the team waved off.

• [2026-01-21 · Christine / Jen] “I don’t think we’d ever merge… that would affect the case records. But we do need the ability to see if there’s an existing case. For IP or surrogate — one or the other or both.” → match on IP name and/or GC name.
• [2026-06-25 · Ryan] The “active cases under agency” panel is being removed; its only use was duplicate detection, which “needs another way to trigger… the same way we have right now with entering the email.” → email-based notification.
• [2026-06-25 · Jen] Fuzzy match on “the combination of names and emails” for the IP check.
• Never hard-block: this is decision support, handled via resume-draft + soft-delete, not merge.

In the prototype

The match % is hardcoded (85 / 72), the trigger only fires for a “Sarah Martinez” carrier name, and “Merge with Existing” is a no-op stub. Open the case-creation wizard →

Note

There is no phases model (“Adam’s very against phases”, 2025-12-11). The user-uniqueness key (email vs. SSN) is an open dev question, because users hold many accounts.

Q3 — Compensation & escrow-agreement templates

Status — Decided · update prototype

Answer: Two different “templates.” The escrow-agreement template is confirmed to default from agency preference, overridable per case. Compensation / DR type templates are an existing Master Template → Agency Template → case model. “Standard / Premium / Custom” tiers are a prototype-only label.

• [2026-06-25 · Jen] The escrow template “defaults to something based on agency preferences, but we still have the ability to override… surrogacy standard populates for all of them, but if I have to change it, I can drop down.” The management fee is a dynamic field inside the agreement — agency-default value, editable.
• [2026-06-25 · Jen] DR types are “standardized across all cases within that agency”; the contract breakdown is informational and separate from DR types.
• [2026-02-05 · Abby] Split by program type (surrogacy vs. egg), with system-default categories at agency onboarding; [2026-04-23] the rebuild adds case-specific templates that the GSA fills / overrides.
• No meeting names a Standard / Premium tier taxonomy.

In the prototype

Compensation templates are a real three-tier entity (master library → agency copy with sourceTemplateId → case copy). But the escrow-agreement template is just five hardcoded dropdown labels that default off case type, not agency — this diverges from the decision. “Custom” is only a label. Open the Template Library →

Q5 — JMS import

Status — Open / deferred

Answer: Deferred. Remove the JMS-import button until an API integration is real; the timeline explicitly needs a dedicated meeting.

• [2026-06-25 · Ryan] “We won’t show the button until it’s an actual thing… I don’t think this will be a step-one, phase-one situation.” Only surrogacy / egg selection remains.
• [2026-06-25 · Jen] “Let’s do manual. We need a larger meeting to decide how we’re connecting which softwares and at what time frame.”
• Data source (clearest yet): ID-linked both ways; the JMS link lives on the agency profile; a JMS API returns IPs / GCs keyed by agency.
• No owner is named in the notes → the Adam / Blakely conversation is the “larger meeting” this calls for.

In the prototype

A disabled “Coming Soon” stub on step 1, plus separate manual JMS IP / GC Case ID free-text fields elsewhere (reference numbers only). Open the case-creation wizard →

Q10 — Case-manager search

Status — Decided · update prototype ✓

Answer: Search the individual, not the agency. (Confirmed 2026-06-25 as forced email search; supersedes the prototype’s agency-first “Add from Another Agency.”)

• [2026-06-25 · Christine] “I would prefer to search email only.” [Jen] “What if we force them to add it by email? …historical issues by adding name.” Reason: names collide across agencies; people use multiple / private emails.
• Structure: pick from the case’s agency, or use an explicit “external case manager” add with email search; show the agency association. Inline case-manager creation must let you pick the case manager’s home agency (fixes today’s bug where a new case manager binds to the creating case’s agency).

In the prototype

Within-agency name / email search plus an agency-first “Add from Another Agency” panel. Update to individual-lookup (email-first) global search with an explicit “external case manager” add. Open the case-creation wizard →

Confirmed · Kristine, Ops · 2026-07-13

“I don’t think the mockups were updated, but we shouldn’t be adding from another agency by looking up agency. We should look up the individual by email/name. We should see their agency association but searching by the individual.”

One detail to reconcile: her note says email/name, but the 2026-06-25 meeting landed on forced email-only. Confirm which holds.

Q11 — Agency-derived case settings

Status — Decided · update prototype

Governing model: default from the agency, editable per case; only redaction (and effectively banking) get locked.

Setting	Disposition (2026-06-25)	State
Redaction	Agency default or egg → grayed out; else user-toggle; double-confirm to unredact	Conditionally locked
Surrogate / ledger access	4-option dropdown (Q12), defaulted	Defaulted
Banking	M&T by IP state, auto-transitions; admin never adjusts → collapse / remove	Locked
DR auto-approve	Agency default, team may see / edit; off for SeedTrust, on for Conceive Abilities	Defaulted
Approval settings (case DRs / pre-GSA / active GSA)	Default from agency	Defaulted
Escrow agreement template	Agency-preference default, overridable (Q3)	Defaulted
Management fee	Agency default, dynamic, editable (Q3)	Defaulted
Lost-wages calculators	Defaulted from agency	Defaulted
Surrogate payment type / method	Removed from onboarding, agency-defaulted, set later	Off onboarding
Insurance-card-required	Removed entirely (“we add insurance cards to everybody”)	Removed

Correction to the original premise

The premise “confirmed: redaction, insurance card, payment method” is out of date: insurance-card-required is being removed and payment method leaves case-opening. Redaction is the one setting solidly agency-derived and conditionally locked.

In the prototype

Only redaction, compensation template, and case-manager defaults are wired from the agency; paymentType / masterAccess are shown read-only; insurance card, escrow template, and DR-approval are not agency-derived (escrow defaults off case type). Open the case-creation wizard →

Q12 — Surrogate access levels

Status — Decided · update prototype ✓

Answer: Four ledger-access levels, as a dropdown (replacing the toggle), defaulted from the agency.

• [2026-06-25 · Christine] “Full access, no access, partial access, partial with balance. Those are the four… instead of a toggle, we’d just have a drop-down.” Framed as ledger access. Maps to the enum: FULL, NONE, PARTIAL, PART_BAL.

In the prototype

In the creation wizard, Surrogate Access is a plain on/off toggle — visible in the Case Settings screenshot under Q11 — while the post-creation settings page uses a three-option dropdown (full / limited / none), and mock data only uses full / limited. Unify on the dropdown and expand to the four levels. Open the case-creation wizard →

Confirmed · Kristine, Ops · 2026-07-13

“As of right now there’s no plan to change the surrogate access types. This was also discussed in the last prototype meeting to ensure we have the dropdown for all four options instead of toggle.”

Minor: the exact per-level semantics still aren’t documented anywhere — capture them from the legacy system when building.

Sources

• 2026-06-25 — Case Onboarding Flow & GSA Contract Limits (primary)
• 2026-04-23 — Portal Rebuild Review
• 2026-02-05 — Compensation Templates UX
• 2026-01-28 / 26 / 21 — UX Case Creation & Onboarding
• 2025-12-11 — Portal Rebuild Requirements
• 2024-03-27 — System UX Pain Points
• The seedtrust-mockups prototype code
• Kristine Hindman (Ops) written answers, 2026-07-13

Meeting quotes are lightly cleaned from speaker-labeled transcripts.