---
paths:
  - backend/matrix_intake/**
---

# Matrix intake bot

Read this before editing `backend/matrix_intake/`. The bot turns a typed message in a
dedicated Matrix room into a proposed fundraising-grid add/edit, gated on **in-thread human
approval** before any write. Phase status: **M1 + M2 deployed & live** (text intake + approval + write; bot on the Spark,
CRM endpoints on the box at **v0.1.0:86**; live-smoked 2026-06-17). **M3 (business-card photo)
deferred** — Spark Control has no vision model yet.

**Post-deploy UX pass — DEPLOYED & LIVE 2026-06-17:** fuzzy investor matching (server-side,
**v0.1.0:86**, installed to the box — `candidates` endpoint verified live) + in-thread
disambiguation and conversational natural-language edits (bot-side, pulled + restarted on the
Spark). See *Fuzzy matching* below. Tests green (27/27 backend + the offline bot suite); the
**Matrix live-smoke** of the disambiguation grammar and the Qwen `revise` leg is still pending.

## What it is (and isn't)

- A **separate process**, not part of the CRM. Its only third-party dep, `matrix-nio`, lives
  in `backend/matrix_intake/requirements.txt` and **must never** be added to the stdlib CRM
  (`backend/server.py`). Runs on the Spark (placement per `standards/guides/placement.md`).
- It **drafts; a human approves.** Nothing is written autonomously — every CRM write follows a
  `yes` reply in the proposal thread. This is exempt from "agents draft, humans send" the same
  way the digest is: it's internal data entry to our own CRM, not outward LP contact.
- It is **not** a parallel write path. It reuses the CRM's own canonical endpoint
  `POST /api/fundraising/log-communication` (create-if-missing + contact upsert + note +
  relational sync + audit) for both new-investor and existing-note cases. Don't reimplement
  grid mutation in the bot.

## Flow

1. Top-level message in the intake room → `parse.parse_message` → local **Qwen via Spark
   Control** (`spark.py` reuses `backend/ingest/llm.py`; temp 0, JSON only) extracts
   `{intent, investor_name, contact_name, contact_email, contact_title, note}`. The original
   message text is stashed on the proposal as `_source_text` (needed later for `revise`'s
   email-integrity check). The system prompt is built by `parse.build_system(roster)`, which —
   when a **team roster** is configured (`INTAKE_TEAM_ROSTER`, see *Config*) — appends an
   **outreach frame**: those names are our own team members *doing* the outreach, so a teammate's
   name is never extracted as the investor/contact and the *other* party is the prospect. Fixes
   the live-smoke gripe where *"jonathan is chatting with wyoming"* picked the teammate, not the
   prospect. `revise` gets the same framing. Roster unset → prior behavior (no frame).
2. `crm_client.match` (`GET /api/intake/match`) resolves new-vs-existing. It returns **both** an
   exact `match` (returns the **grid row id** so an approved note lands on exactly that investor,
   no duplicate) **and**, when there's no exact match, a ranked list of fuzzy `candidates` (see
   *Fuzzy matching* below).
3. Three outcomes drive what gets posted, all **in a thread** rooted at the user's message, plus a
   brief **main-timeline nudge** (a plain reply — `matrix_io.make_reply`) so it isn't missed:
   - **Exact match** → auto-attach: proposal flips to `meeting_note` with `_match_id` set, rendered
     as the normal approval card.
   - **Fuzzy candidates, no exact** → a **disambiguation** card (`proposals.render_disambiguation`):
     the proposal is held at `_stage="disambiguate"` with `_candidates`, and the human must pick a
     **number** / `new` / `no` before it becomes an approval-stage proposal.
   - **Neither** → the new-investor approval card.
   The nudge is a **pointer only, not a reply target** — you need the thread to act. The pending
   proposal is held in memory keyed by the thread root (`proposals.ProposalStore`).
4. User replies **in the thread**. `handle_reply` branches on `_stage`:
   - **disambiguate** (`handle_disambiguation`): a number attaches to that candidate (→ `meeting_note`
     + `_match_id`, re-rendered for approval); `new` proceeds as a new investor; `no` discards.
   - **approval**: `yes` commits; `no` discards; `edit field=value` is the deterministic fast-path
     edit; **anything else is treated as a natural-language revision** — `parse.revise` sends
     `{current proposal + instruction}` back through local Qwen and re-renders the revised card (a
     no-op revision is detected via `proposals.same_fields` and re-prompts instead of saying
     "Updated"). On `yes`, `crm_client.commit` POSTs to `log-communication` tagged
     `source="matrix_intake"` (provenance in the audit log).
   A bare `yes`/`no` typed **top-level** (not in the thread) while a proposal is pending gets a
   "reply in the thread" redirect (`store.any_pending()` guard in `handle_intake`), not a
   misparsed new intake.

## Fuzzy matching (server-side, ships in the s9pk)

`GET /api/intake/match` returns `{match, candidates}`. `find_intake_match` is unchanged —
**exact-after-normalization**, and an exact match still auto-attaches without disambiguation.
`find_intake_candidates` (new) is the fuzzy layer, **deterministic, no LLM**: it scans the same
canonical grid blob and scores each row by `max(`name similarity`, `email near-match`)`, keeping
rows ≥ `min_score` (0.62), ranked, capped at 5:
- **Name** (`_name_similarity`): max of stdlib `difflib` sequence ratio (near-spellings —
  "Charlie"/"Charles") and token-set Jaccard (word-order). **Legal-entity suffixes**
  (LLC/LP/Inc/… via `_strip_legal_suffix`) are stripped first, so "Acme Capital" ~ "Acme Capital
  LLC" scores 1.0 (a near-certain duplicate `find_intake_match` misses because it compares the
  full string) — and is surfaced as a candidate, **never auto-attached** (the human still confirms).
- **Email** (`_email_edit_distance`): Levenshtein ≤ 2 against each contact email (dist 1→0.9,
  2→0.8). Distance 0 is an exact email — that's `find_intake_match`'s job, skipped here.
- **Recall-favoring by design:** a shared common name-word ("… Capital") can lift an unrelated firm
  into the 0.6–0.8 band. Acceptable — it's a *ranked, human-confirmed* shortlist, and the cost of an
  occasional stray suggestion is far lower than missing a real near-duplicate. **Semantic pruning of
  the shortlist (the "Charlie really is Charles" judgment) is a deferred LLM-judge re-rank** — fed
  only the shortlist, never the whole LP list — intentionally NOT built in this pass, because the
  deterministic filter already surfaces every duplicate the human then resolves.

## Email-activity proposal review (the CRM→Matrix bridge, v0.1.0:89)

A second, separate flow runs alongside intake: reviewing the **proposed grid notes** the CRM
drafts from newly-matched email (`server.propose_email_activity_notes`, surfaced on the web Email
Capture panel). The bot lets the team approve/dismiss/edit those on mobile, kept **in sync** with
the web panel. The CRM (box, stdlib, no matrix-nio) can't post to Matrix, so the bot **pulls**.

- **Dedicated room** (`MATRIX_EMAIL_REVIEW_ROOM`, see *Config*) — separate from the intake room
  so high-volume email proposals don't drown the conversational intake. Unset → the whole leg is
  off (the bot just does intake). The bot must be a **member** of this room.
- **Poll loop** (`bot.poll_email_proposals`, every `EMAIL_POLL_SEC`=20s) calls `crm_client.
  list_email_proposals` → `GET /api/intake/email-proposals`, which returns three work-lists:
  - **to_post** — pending, not yet posted → the bot posts a review card (metadata + a short email
    **snippet** + the drafted note; the full body is the web popup's job, kept compact for mobile),
    then records the thread-root event id via `POST .../{id}/matrix {event_id}`.
  - **open** — pending, posted, not closed → the bot rebuilds its `event_id → proposal` routing map
    from these on **every poll**, so replies still route **after a bot restart** (unlike intake's
    in-memory-only store — the state lives CRM-side in `email_proposal_matrix`).
  - **to_close** — decided on the **web** while a thread was open → the bot posts a "decided on the
    web — thread closed" line and `POST .../{id}/matrix {closed:true}`.
- **In-thread replies** (`bot.handle_email_reply`, `email_proposals.interpret`): `yes` →
  `POST .../{id}/decide {decision:"approve", note}` (appends the note to the grid, source='matrix',
  closes the thread atomically); `no` → dismiss; **anything else → NL revision of the note** via
  local Qwen (`email_proposals.revise_note`, no Claude/scrub) — re-rendered for re-approval, so the
  draft→approve gate holds. A no-op/empty revision re-prompts instead of saying "Updated".
- **Two surfaces, one source of truth.** Decide on the web → the bot announces + closes the thread;
  decide on Matrix → the web panel polls `/api/activity/proposals` (~25s) and the card clears.
  `email_proposal_matrix` (1:1 side row, migration `0003`) carries `event_id`/`posted_at`/`closed_at`;
  a matrix decision sets `closed_at` in the same txn so it's never re-announced via `to_close`.
- **Pure logic is `email_proposals.py`** (card render, reply grammar, note revision) — unit-tested
  offline in `test_email_proposals.py`; the async poll/post wiring is in `bot.py` (live-smoke only).
- **Known minors (low-likelihood, ~5-person team):** if the CRM is unreachable *between* posting a
  card and recording its event id, the next poll re-posts a duplicate card (the orphan's replies
  won't route — re-send/decide the recorded one). A mid-revise bot restart loses the in-memory
  revised note (rebuilt from `open` = the original `proposed_note`; still a valid proposal).

## Rules / gotchas

- **Module-name collision:** the intake config module is `settings.py`, **not** `config.py`,
  because `backend/ingest/config.py` is imported (as bare `config`) through `spark → llm`. A
  second `config` module would shadow it in `sys.modules` and break `llm` (`CHAT_MODEL`).
  Keep intake module names from colliding with ingest's (`config`, `http_util`, `llm`).
- **Email integrity:** `parse.normalize` only keeps an address that literally appears in the
  source message — the model must never mint one (a wrong email is worse than none). It takes
  the **first** address in the text, so a two-person message ("Alice a@x.com and Bob b@y.com")
  could attach the wrong one; the human sees it in the proposal and can `edit email=…` before
  approving. Cross-referencing multiple addresses to the named contact is a deliberate non-goal
  for v1.
- **Conversational revise keeps the email rule:** `parse.revise` re-runs a free-form correction
  through Qwen but **never trusts the model's email field**. A changed address is accepted only if
  it literally appears in the *instruction text* (searched first), else the existing
  integrity-checked address is kept (`_apply_revision`). The model can edit name/contact/title/note
  freely but cannot mint an email. A revision that nulls both investor and contact is rejected (the
  proposal can't be emptied to something unactionable). Revise edits fields on the current proposal;
  it does **not** re-run the matcher if you rename the firm mid-thread (a known v1 limit — the human
  still approves).
- **Deploy is split across two surfaces** (mind which one carries a change): the fuzzy
  **`candidates`** come from `server.py` → ship in the **s9pk** (build + install, version-bumped).
  The bot's **disambiguation flow + `revise`** live in `backend/matrix_intake/` → ship on the
  **Spark** via `git pull` + restart. A bot restart alone won't deliver `candidates` (the box would
  return an empty list and the bot just proposes new — safe, but no fuzzy surfacing until the s9pk
  is installed). Same lesson as the v83→v84 `/api/intake/match` 404.
- **Double-approve guard:** `handle_reply` pops the pending proposal from the store *before*
  awaiting the commit, so a second `yes` arriving mid-write is a no-op (asyncio is cooperative;
  the pop is atomic w.r.t. other events). On commit failure the proposal is restored for retry.
  *Known minor:* in the **disambiguate** stage the pick re-stores an approval-stage proposal
  before its `await say`, so a rapidly-repeated `1` can have the second one fall through to the
  NL-revise path (a wasted Spark round-trip that re-prompts) — harmless, nothing commits, not
  guarded (low likelihood on a ~5-person team).
- **Local-only parse:** intake text is real LP substance but goes ONLY to local Qwen via Spark
  Control, never Claude — so no scrub boundary applies (same basis as the digest). Never call a
  Spark directly; always go through `SPARK_CONTROL_URL`.
- **Auth:** the CRM has no service-key path; the bot logs in as a dedicated CRM user
  (`CRM_BOT_USERNAME`/`CRM_BOT_PASSWORD`) → Bearer JWT, re-login once on 401.
- **Tests** are offline: `test_parse.py` / `test_proposals.py` / `test_crm_client.py` stub the
  network; `backend/test_intake_endpoints.py` boots the real server against a temp DB and
  covers `/api/intake/match` + the create→match (no-duplicate) contract + provenance. A **live
  Matrix smoke** needs creds + `matrix-nio` installed on the Spark — it can't run in CI.
- **Grid note line:** the bot sends a **blank `subject`** when there's a note so the CRM's
  one-line note summary shows the note text (the CRM renders subject-or-body); a provenance
  label is sent only when there's no note. v0.1.0:85 also dropped the redundant `[note]` type
  tag from that server-side line (informative types like `[call]` keep theirs).

## Deployment & ops

- **Runs on the Spark as a docker container** (`matrix-intake`), since 2026-06-17 — SSH alias
  `modelo32`, host `spark-32d0`, repo clone at `/home/modelo/ten31-database`. Defined by
  `docker-compose.yml` at the repo root + `backend/matrix_intake/Dockerfile`. The image bundles
  `backend/matrix_intake/` **and** `backend/ingest/` (spark.py reaches into the latter's stdlib
  Spark client via sys.path); `.env` is mounted read-only at `/app/.env`. `network_mode: host`
  so it reaches Matrix, the CRM, and Spark Control. Startup logs `listening as … in room …`.
- **Survives a Spark reboot** via `restart: unless-stopped` — the durability fix that retired the
  old bare `nohup` launch. (The previous nohup method + `/tmp/intake-bot.pid` are gone.)
- **Deploy / update after a `git pull`:** `cd /home/modelo/ten31-database && git pull && docker
  compose up -d --build`. **Logs:** `docker logs -f matrix-intake`. **Restart:**
  `docker restart matrix-intake`. **Stop:** `docker compose down`. A restart still **drops
  in-memory pending proposals** (re-send to recover).
- **Not yet a spark-control dashboard card.** The container is managed via `docker`/SSH today; a
  managed card (Update/Restart/Stop/Logs tile, like `matrix-bridge`) is a separate spark-control
  task — see `docs/handoffs/add-intake-bot-to-spark-control.md`.
- **Gotcha — the repo-root `.dockerignore` is SHARED** with the s9pk build (`start9/0.4/Dockerfile`,
  same repo-root context). Don't add bot-only exclusions (e.g. `frontend/`, `docs/`) to it — you'd
  break the CRM image build, which needs them. It already excludes the security-critical bits
  (`data/`, `.env`), which is all the bot build needs.
- **Server-side endpoints ship in the s9pk, not the bot.** `GET /api/intake/match` and the
  `source` provenance on `log-communication` live in `backend/server.py`, so they reach the box
  only via an **s9pk build + install** — a bot restart won't deliver them. (Missed in v83: the
  box 404'd `/api/intake/match` until **v0.1.0:84**.) **Same split for the email-review bridge
  (v0.1.0:89):** the `/api/intake/email-proposals*` endpoints + the `email_proposal_matrix`
  migration (`0003`) + the `bot` role ship in the **s9pk**; the poll loop + review-room handling
  ship on the **Spark** (git pull + restart). A bot restart against a pre-v89 box returns nothing
  useful (404/empty), so install the s9pk first, then set the bot user's role + the review room.
- **`CRM_API_BASE` is the box over the LAN, not localhost** (bot on the Spark, CRM on the box).
  `https://immense-voyage.local` (443) is the **StartOS dashboard**, not the CRM — the CRM has
  its own interface address (the URL you open in a browser); container port 8080 isn't
  LAN-reachable.

## Config

All in `.env` (names in `.env.example`): `MATRIX_HOMESERVER`, `MATRIX_USER`,
`MATRIX_ACCESS_TOKEN`, `MATRIX_DEVICE_ID`, `MATRIX_INTAKE_ROOM`; `CRM_API_BASE`,
`CRM_BOT_USERNAME`, `CRM_BOT_PASSWORD`, `CRM_API_VERIFY_TLS`. Spark settings are inherited from
the ingest client (`SPARK_CONTROL_URL`, `CRM_CHAT_MODEL`).

- **`MATRIX_EMAIL_REVIEW_ROOM`** (optional) — the dedicated room for the email-activity proposal
  review leg (above). Unset/empty disables that leg entirely (the bot does intake only). The bot
  must be invited to + joined in this room. Read once at startup, like the room/roster.
- **Bot CRM user needs role `bot`.** The email-proposal endpoints (`/api/intake/email-proposals*`)
  are gated to `require_bot_or_admin` because they expose LP email content (the proposals are
  admin-only on the web). The `bot` role is **authenticated-but-not-admin** — it passes these
  endpoints + the auth-only ones the bot already uses (login, `/api/intake/match`,
  `log-communication`), but **never** `require_admin` (no user-management/settings/security reach).
  One-time flip of the existing service account (kept out of the invite UI's member/admin dropdown
  — provision deliberately): an admin `PATCH /api/users/<id> {"role":"bot"}`, or on the box
  `UPDATE users SET role='bot' WHERE username='<CRM_BOT_USERNAME>';`. Role controls *reach*; the
  draft→approve gate (a human still approves every write) controls *autonomy* — two separate axes.

- **`INTAKE_TEAM_ROSTER`** (optional, comma-separated) — Ten31 team-member names that frame the
  parse (see *Flow* step 1). Use the **first names as actually typed in the room** ("Grant,
  Jonathan, …"). Read once at startup by `settings.team_roster()`, so **a roster change needs a
  bot restart**. It lives only in the Spark's `.env` (bot-side) — no s9pk change. Empty/unset
  disables the framing.