Changing a follow-up
An open row is editable: the reason, the due time, the channel. Moving a time forward has its own operation — snooze — and ending a commitment you will not keep is cancel. What no operation does is erase what already happened: there is no verb that un-attempts a row, and that absence is deliberate rather than missing.
The operations, and which one you actually want#
| You want to | Use | What it leaves behind |
|---|---|---|
| Fix a wrong time | Edit the due time | The row, with its history, at the corrected time |
| Push it out because today is not the day | snooze | A record that it was pushed, and the new due time |
| Correct what it says | Edit the reason | The row; the original wording is not what matters, the accuracy is |
| Change who executes it | Edit the channel | The same commitment, drained differently — or by a person, on task |
| End this one commitment | cancel | A closed row that still exists and still says why it was made |
| Stop everything for one conversation | stop_for_thread | Every follow-up on that thread ends at once |
| Stop everything for one person | stop_for_person | Every follow-up for that relationship ends at once |
The last two are the ones people reach for too late. When a customer says they have gone elsewhere, or a deal is lost, cancelling rows one at a time misses the one nobody remembered. Stopping for the person is a single decision that leaves nothing behind to ring them next week.
Editing against re-creating#
Edit whenever the commitment is the same commitment. The row keeps its place on the person's record, its history, and its identity for the duplicate rule — which matters, because cancelling a row and creating a replacement at the same time for the same person is exactly the shape the duplicate rule is watching for.
Create a new row only when the promise genuinely changed: a second, different thing you now owe the same person. Two commitments should be two rows even when they are due within minutes of each other, because completing one should not close the other.
What a change records#
- Who changed it. Edits are decisions, and 'who moved this to Friday' is a question that gets asked when Friday is missed.
- What it was before. A time that has moved is more informative than a time that appears correct — a row snoozed four times is telling you something about the commitment behind it.
- The events that have already happened. An attempt stays an attempt. A row that was tried and refused carries that refusal even after you edit the time and it succeeds.
- Nothing about the customer. Editing an internal row sends nothing and tells nobody outside the workspace.
Editing a row that is mid-flight#
A row that has already come due can be picked up by a drain at any tick, so an edit made in that window is a race you will not always win. The practical rule: if a row is due now and you do not want it executed, snooze it or cancel it rather than editing the reason and hoping.
On the phone channel there is a second reason to act early. A row more than twenty-four hours late is closed rather than rung, so editing an old call-back's reason does not bring it back to life — it will still be closed as missed. If the call still needs making, make a new commitment with an honest new time.
Questions#
Can I move a follow-up to a different person?
Treat that as a new commitment rather than an edit. A follow-up belongs to the person it was promised to; re-pointing it at somebody else keeps a history that is now about the wrong relationship, and the duplicate rule keys on the person.
Does snoozing count as completing?
No. Snoozing moves the due time; completing says the commitment was kept. A row snoozed repeatedly is still open, still owed, and still counted in what you owe that person.
Can the Assistant edit a follow-up for me?
It works through the same operations you do, so what it can change is what you can change, under the same permissions. Check the row afterwards if the time mattered — a re-scheduled time is worth confirming with your own eyes.