Attorney Review Handoff and Decisions

1. Review assignment and business model

This public packet is for review by the owner’s chosen qualified Arizona attorney; no attorney or broker has been contacted by publication. Made Clean Pros LLC markets and manages initial Tucson residential Standard/Deep cleaning, coordinates willing providers, sets customer quotes/fixed offered payouts, collects authorized payment, and owns support and recovery. It is not described as a passive referral service. Future commercial or national expansion is not activated and requires a new applicable-law/operations review.

The intended provider relationship is an independent business, but actual classification is unresolved. Review pricing, appointment windows, result checklists, readiness, support, suspension and repeat relationships under each relevant tax, wage, workers’ compensation and agency test. Proposed indemnity is proportionate to provider-attributable fault and expressly preserves Company duties; policy obligations cannot be created by a contract or COI.

2. Payment price and recurring model

Model B saves a method at booking without a cleaning charge/long hold, authorizes on local cleaning day before travel/start, and captures only under an approved completion/concern policy. Holds and settled charges are different; silence and a review submission do not authorize capture or resolve a concern. Exact operational clocks and disputed-amount treatment are recommendations in the companion policy, not approved law or live automation.

Issued quotes retain their displayed recorded expiry, normally seven days from saved quote-session creation rather than a fresh period for each revision; accepted quotes/bookings, recurring arrangements and provider payouts cannot be silently repriced by an optimizer. Changes need a new explained proposal and the applicable assent. Tax is not configured, so current quoted service subtotal is not a final tax-inclusive promise. Optional Standard recurring discounts are 15%/10%/5%, without a paid membership, minimum count or retrospective clawback; accepted future prices are protected until properly changed.

3. Pilot evaluations and review integrity

A volunteer host owes $0 even if another booking has a saved card. Company separately agrees and funds candidate compensation, independent of passing, praise or public permission. Host/candidate each accept the exact recorded scope, exclusions, time, fixed compensation and actual support arrangement; requests do not confirm appointments. Assessment completion does not activate a provider.

Candid private feedback is separate from optional exact public text/rating/identity. Every complimentary review is disclosed and remains outside ordinary customer totals. Edits retire prior publication and require fresh permission/moderation; withdrawal removes future Company display. No Google review is part of the exchange. Compensation or service remedies cannot depend on a positive sentiment.

4. Document versions and prospective acceptance

Each document displays its exact current version, revision date and document ID. The initial customer/provider/pilot agreement drafts remain v0.3; the visitor-assistant privacy/communications additions and this updated handoff are v0.4, revised October 24, 2026. Privacy is a current factual disclosure rather than an unaccepted contract. No public review document is connected to an acceptance action, legal-approval flag, new fee, recurring commitment or provider activation.

Before future activation: customer Service Orders must name the approved customer agreement plus pricing/payment, cancellation/access, quality and communications versions; provider execution names the provider agreement and incorporated Work Order policies; evaluation orders name both host/candidate versions plus the exact visit-specific terms version. Review permission remains a separate exact-version choice. Retain actor, authority, complete text/content hash, order/terms reference, affirmative action/time and delivered-copy evidence under the existing versioning foundation. Do not relabel old development acknowledgments as legal assent or retroactively attach v0.3.

5. Coverage privacy and unresolved operating facts

No insurance, bonding, completed screening, staffed storefront, 24/7 support or continuous on-site supervision is claimed. Broker review must confirm actual Company/provider coverages, exclusions, endorsements, notice rights and full planned-visit validity. Current readiness does not yet demonstrate every future-visit insurance requirement; accepted commitments after lapse need named human disposition.

Current Privacy Notice is based on actual hosting/Auth/data/document/email/analytics behavior. Limited GA4 after interaction remains on existing eligible public pages only, with GPC/DNT respected, Enhanced measurement and advertising settings off, and sanitized events. New legal-review routes are untracked. General service-email/SMS and paid AI recruiting/interview delivery remain disabled or disconnected; saved visitor assistance is separately disclosed with its actual guided or live-AI mode; publishing the text does not supply missing permission or capacity.

6. Narrow current source status and review limits

The source notes below distinguish current statutory text, effective rules, pending rulemaking and case-law limits. The 2024 FTC amended negative-option rule was vacated; the FTC restored the prior rule in February 2026 and its March 2026 action is an advance notice, not a binding replacement. ROSCA remains a separate disclosure/consent/cancellation authority where applicable. Simple cancellation is also an intentional contract/product safeguard.

The 2026 federal contractor replacement is not represented as effective: OIRA lists its final-stage rule under review, while DOL’s separate enforcement policy does not decide private litigation or state/tax tests. Arizona statutory presumptions are conditional and practice-dependent; a COI does not amend coverage. FTC review guidance prohibits sentiment-conditioned incentives even with disclosure. Counsel should verify controlling law at execution and each expansion, and assess relevant session-law commencement rather than assuming every online compilation amendment already applies.

Competitor analysis was used to spot issues, not to import Homeaglow memberships, lead-only disclaimers, full-price lockouts, rating conditions, liability caps or arbitration. The older original draft/history and detailed underwriting questionnaire remain preserved internally; confidential applications, tax/bank data, policy numbers and internal notes are excluded from this public packet.

Focused owner and attorney decisions

The following are recommended positions to approve or revise. They are not missing factual claims or authority to activate operations.

Document and acceptance version map

Each proposed execution document requires a separately approved final version and affirmative action before real use. Current visit-specific UUID consent, feedback publication choices and development acknowledgments are preserved; none is migrated to these public review IDs.

Primary-source status notes — checked October 24, 2026

• OIRA current DOL review: RIN 1235-AA46 final-stage rule was pending review, received September 28, 2026. It is not represented as effective. DOL rulemaking and WHD FAB 2025-1 distinguish rulemaking and enforcement posture; neither decides this particular relationship.
• FTC February 2026 restoration follows the July 8, 2025 vacatur of the 2024 amended negative-option rule. The March 2026 ANPRM is proposed rulemaking, not a binding replacement, and discusses separate ROSCA disclosure, consent and cancellation requirements where applicable.
• A.R.S. §20-443.03: a certificate does not amend coverage or create additional policy rights. Verify actual endorsements and lawful notice rights. The Arizona session-law index and compilation commencement limits must be checked for the relevant date.
• A.R.S. §23-902 and §23-1601: conditional presumptions depend on required facts, agreement/declaration conditions and substantially consistent conduct; the latter is not a substitute for the former’s workers’ compensation agreement. IRS common-law guidance addresses a separate tax test.
• FTC review-rule guidance: sentiment-conditioned incentives are prohibited; disclosure does not cure that condition. FTC endorsement guidance addresses material incentive/relationship disclosure.
• Dobson Bay, Arizona Supreme Court (2017) supplies penalty/liquidated-damages considerations in a different commercial setting, not approval of cleaning fees. Arizona consumer-fraud law and electronic record retention inform review; later cases, current law and applicability require counsel.

This bounded refresh is not an exhaustive legal opinion or citator review. No legal classification, enforceability, coverage or attorney approval is certified.

Google Privacy Policy provides the vendor context referenced by our current privacy disclosure.

Sources reused and related documents

Consolidated v0.2 packet and later ModelB, pricing, feedback, volunteer-host and publication requirements.

Earlier drafts and research are preserved. This revision supplies original Made Clean Pros language for this business model; competitor contracts are not adopted wholesale.

• Website Use Terms
• Privacy Notice and Analytics
• Customer Service Agreement
• Pricing, Payment and Recurring Service Policy
• Cancellation, Rescheduling and Access Policy
• Quality, Re-cleans, Refunds and Claims Policy
• Independent Cleaning Provider Agreement
• Volunteer-Host Evaluation Terms
• Paid Cleaner Evaluation Terms
• Photos, Feedback and Public Reviews Policy
• Service and Marketing Communications Policy

Remaining review items: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8. These recommendations do not change accepted records.