[ Case study ]

Making the market easier to run

A supervised AI workflow for Blue Earth Community Market.

Mabel prepares the work.
Heather makes the decisions.

An application, a date signup, and a day of attendance are three different facts. The organizer needs to track each one separately.

I designed and directed an AI-assisted workflow around one private vendor record. Mabel, the market's dedicated assistant, reconciles information, prepares communications, and flags exceptions. The organizer keeps the business decisions, outgoing messages, and public-release approval.

My contribution: Systems design, implementation direction, integration decisions, and acceptance criteria.
The collaboration: Heather supplied the operating knowledge and business decisions. AI supported implementation, documentation, and testing.
The timeline: Implemented February 2026.
Operating guidance reviewed October 3, 2026.

The records disagreed across tools.

The market already had forms, Google Sheets, email, SQLite, SignUpGenius, and a public website. It needed one authoritative vendor record.

An application could be complete while date selection was missing. A signup could pass without evidence of attendance. A draft could exist without having been sent. The organizer had to reconcile these differences.

How could an assistant prepare drafts and update records without adding another conflicting source?

Application receivedEvidence of an application

Date selectedEvidence of a signup

Attendance recordedRequires attendance evidence

An application does not prove a signup.
A signup does not prove attendance.

One vendor database with defined handoffs.

A private SQLite database holds the vendor records. A small Python command interface gives Mabel supported, validated operations. Email, forms, signup exports, and website files supply evidence or receive outputs.

ApplicationsExisting forms, Apps Script, Sheets, and email

Vendor emailInformation to review

Date signupsOrganizer-supplied SignUpGenius export

One private vendor record

Mabel reviews the evidence and reconciles supported facts through validated commands.

Stable identity · Source tracking · Change history

Private reporting

Overview, Vendors, and Validation views. Contact details and internal notes stay out.

Vendor communications

Mabel prepares approved English/Spanish drafts.

Heather reviews and manually sends.

Public information

Mabel prepares local website changes.

Heather approves publication.

The market still uses its forms and signup service. Mabel imports signups after review. Website changes go through a separate publication step.

Preserve the familiar process. The migration kept established workflow fields and choices. We checked the migrated records before changing the database structure.

Keep the useful tools. Signup PDFs use embedded text, source fingerprints, and review before changes. Handwriting recognition and general-purpose OCR are outside scope.

Daily review and weekly preparation.

At 8:00 AM Central, Mabel reviews market mail, reconciles supported facts, prepares eligible drafts, and flags exceptions. The weekly setup drafts depend on Heather's confirmation.

Prepare the week.
Keep the decisions visible.

Tuesday

Heather supplies booth assignments.
Mabel prepares setup material.
Thursday

Heather confirms the vendors, arrival details, and setup plan.
Friday

Mabel creates setup drafts only after confirmation.
Heather reviews and sends.
After the market

Heather supplies attendance and exceptions.
Mabel reconciles and prepares follow-up.

New applications trigger onboarding follow-up. Calendar rollover removes elapsed future dates and prepares local website updates for approval.

Sometimes, the right output is a question.

Missing setup details should hold a draft. A conflicting date needs the organizer's decision. Mabel's job is to organize the work without inventing capacity, approval, or a completed booking.

Follow a handoff

Illustrative scenarios, not recorded vendor incidents.

Evidence
The setup plan is confirmed.

The vendor, date, assignments, and arrival details are known.
Mabel's next step
Prepare the matching draft.

Choose the approved language and template; fill only supported blanks.
Heather's decision
Review and manually send.

A draft does not change the record to "sent." Delivery needs confirmation.

A draft is ready for human review. No email has been sent.

A request does not grant permissionVendor email cannot change the assistant's permissions.
A signup does not prove attendanceA past date needs supporting attendance evidence.
A draft is not a sent messageSending remains a human action.
Prepared changes still need publicationLocal website changes need release approval.

Commands validate data. The execution environment limits access. Guidance and human review control business decisions and publication.

We replaced mail wrappers with editable templates.

The communications work began accumulating a catalog, a ledger proposal, and draft and bulk-mail wrappers. I asked whether those tools were needed.

Mabel needed to select the vendors and fill approved templates with confirmed details. Heather needed to review and send the messages. We delivered an operating guide and editable HTML templates, then retired the wrappers.

We kept the strict database interface, where constraints protect correctness. We simplified communications, where extra abstractions added maintenance.

The growing proposal

Template catalog

Communications ledger

Draft and bulk-mail wrappers

The delivered workflow

Approved templates

A concise operating guide

Human review and sending

Validated commands protect the database.
Editable templates let Heather review and send messages.

Make changes explainable and recoverable.

The system supports intake, vendor search, onboarding, attendance, communications, private reporting, and public content preparation. The commands validate changes, backups support recovery, and publication requires approval.

Constrain the changes.

Supported vendor commands use validation, locks, transactions, and attributed audit history. The commands do not allow arbitrary SQL, permanent deletion, or automatic merging of vendor identities.

Back up records and check recovery.

Imports retain their source and batch. Backups, recovery checks, monitoring, and rebuild documentation support the isolated business workspace.

Separate the release.

Static DreamHost publishing requires committed source, a remote backup, public files only, and verification. The private vendor host stays separate.

The operating stack combines OpenClaw, Python, SQLite, Google Workspace, SignUpGenius, and static publishing.

Two tests that sharpened the operating rules

Use the scoped environment.

An early scheduled test tried the host shell and stopped. We changed the instructions to require the restricted environment and stop if it was unavailable. The corrected run reviewed one message, escalated a question, and sent no email.

Preserve approved copy.

Mabel initially treated templates as suggestions for rewriting. We instructed Mabel to preserve the wording and structure, fill only confirmed details, and flag mismatches. She may rewrite a template only when asked.

The evidence is in the cutover.

We checked every vendor ID against the reviewed SQLite source. We kept newer workflow and attendance information already in the database.

Vendor records reconciled

36 records updatedAudit events and before/after backups verified

All 65 reviewedNewer operational information preserved

Supplied-field mismatches
after reconciliation

Migration evidence, not weekly attendance or a measure of time saved. The green segment shows the 36 updated records within the 65 reviewed.

Recovery paths exercised
Backup integrity and restore-style checks passed for the covered records and workspace data.
Intake exercised across 25 pages
A synthetic signup packet passed embedded-text PDF intake testing. This is test evidence, not a production-volume claim.
Public publishing exercised
Checks verified the website migration and the deployment process that requires approval.

Next, measure the work of supervision.

Across four comparable market weeks, I would track reconciliation, preparation, draft review, exceptions, corrections, and missed follow-ups. I would also record vendor participation and unusual events.

A documented manual baseline would support a before-and-after comparison. Without one, the result would be observed workload. The findings should guide the next integration or simplification.

Mabel prepares drafts and reconciles records. Heather makes the business decisions.

Implemented February 2026. Evidence drawn from implementation and validation records, with operating documentation reviewed October 3, 2026. That review reported organizer follow-up and a missing guidance file; aggregate activity was agent-reported, not an independent audit. This case study involved no fresh end-to-end production audit or full disaster-recovery rehearsal. No private vendor records or correspondence are reproduced.