Spec now describes what shipped: two settings, no leg locking

Marty's decisions, 18 September: two states rather than three, and no
ability for a leader to lock their leg. Also records the fix behind
Terry's original complaint — a personal link no longer falls through to
the company rotation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/placement-switch-spec.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # How your link places people — a setting, not a rule
 
-**Status:** proposal, nothing built yet. For Marty, Terry and Clinton to agree on before we code it.
+**Status: BUILT AND LIVE**, 18 September 2026. Two settings, not three — see "what shipped" at the end.
-**Written:** 18 September 2026
+**For:** Marty, Terry, Clinton
 
 ---
 
@@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ On the dashboard, under "Share this position":
 |---|---|---|
 | **Team first** *(today's behaviour)* | Routes to the next position in your leg that still needs directs | Most people. Builds the team in order and gets your two qualified |
 | **Direct** | Every join lands directly under you, as depth in your leg | A leader deliberately building out one position |
-| **Follow my sponsor** | Mirrors whatever your sponsor is set to, and keeps tracking it if they change | Someone who wants to run their upline's play without thinking about it |
 
 A new member's starting value is **whatever their sponsor is on** — so a team duplicates its
 leader by default, which is what Terry is asking for. But it is visible on their own dashboard
@@ -136,12 +135,21 @@ their own two. *Handling:* the setting screen says that in one sentence, next to
 
 ---
 
-## What we need agreed before building
+## What shipped, and the decisions behind it
 
-1. **Three states, or just two?** Is "Follow my sponsor" worth the extra concept, or is a plain
+**Two settings, not three.** "Follow my sponsor" was dropped. Its only real value was letting a
-   inherited starting value enough?
+leader change their whole leg retroactively, which is also its biggest risk — that is the
-2. **Should a leader be able to lock their leg?** Terry might want his team on Direct with no
+doctrine shift above, just automated. Instead a new member gets a one-time copy of their
-   opt-out. My recommendation is no — it is the kind of control that reads badly when a member
+sponsor's setting at join, and the panel says where it came from. Whether a setting was chosen
-   finds out — but it is a real request and worth a decision.
+or inherited is recorded in the data, so the drift question never needs a rule.
-3. **Does the same switch belong on InstantAdPay?** It has the same sponsor/placement shape, and
+
-   answering it once for both is cheaper than twice.
+**No leg locking.** Marty's call, 18 September: a leader cannot force their team onto a setting.
+Every member can change their own, always.
+
+**Rotation never leaves the member's own team.** A personal link used to fall through to the
+COMPANY rotation once the member's leg was fully qualified — which is how Terry's prospects were
+being offered position #148. It now places under the member instead. Team rotation means the
+member's own downline and nothing else.
+
+**Still open:** whether the same switch belongs on InstantAdPay, and a short training video
+explaining the two settings.