[Help wanted] ADM Prevention: complete passive / UC / churning detection from real mid-office practice

[telivity-otaip]

Who this is for

TMC / OTA ADM analysts, ticketing QA, and GDS queue managers. If you've disputed (or paid) ADMs for passive segments, married-segment breaks, or churning — we want your checklist.

Why this hardens the system

Agent 6.2 ADM Prevention runs pre-ticketing checks (duplicate, fare/class, passive, married, TTL, commission, endorsement, tour code, net remit). The constitution already warns that "HX/UN/NO only" is incomplete — real detection needs UC/HN/carrier codes and segment history for churning.

Files:

• packages/agents/settlement/src/adm-prevention/
• docs/agents/stage-6-settlement.md (Agent 6.2)
• CLAUDE.md → Agent 6.2 anti-rationalization table

What we need

1. A practical status-code matrix per major GDS (which codes imply passive / risky / churn).
2. How you detect churning in ops (book→cancel→rebook patterns, time windows).
3. Married-segment indicators you actually see (Sabre / Amadeus / Travelport differences).
4. TTL edge cases that still generate ADMs (timezone, "issued on deadline day", fare-quote vs booking TTL).
5. KB write-up + failing/passing fixtures for the scariest false negatives.

Acceptance criteria

• KB status-code list beyond HX/UN/NO
• Churning definition that requires history (not current status alone)
• At least one GDS-specific married-segment note
• Tests or fixtures encoding those rules
• No carrier-secret commission tables pasted from private contracts

Search keywords

help wanted · ADM · passive segment · churning · married segment · TTL · TMC · ticketing QA · BSP

How to contribute

Comment with "ADMs I've seen most" + which GDS. KB-first PRs happily accepted.