Salesforce Widget: Duplicate Contract Creation (Same Opportunity)

Code Paths (angular-frontend / apps/sfdc)

Template selection → questionnaire (dedupe gate): TemplateContainerService#unmarkExistingTemplate()

• If allow_duplicate_execution_version is true for the workspace/opportunity context → skips the existing-contract check and navigates straight to the questionnaire.
• If false → calls getExistingContractInSignState(template) and only shows the "unmark for execution" modal when a contract in SIGN state exists.

Existing-contract search: SfdcExistingContractsService#getExistingContractInSignState() builds a contract search with display_status = SIGN (among other filters). DRAFT and INFO_COLLECTION contracts for the same external metadata (Salesforce record / opportunity) are not returned by this query.

Questionnaire submit: On a fresh load, contract$.id may be unset → createContract() runs. Repeated widget opens can each create a new contract.

Investigation Workflow

1. Capture identifiers

Collect:

• {opportunity_id} (Salesforce Opportunity ID)
• {wsid} / workspace id
• {cluster} (US / EU / IN / MEA)
• Contract IDs involved ({contract_id} list)
• Template name / template id if known
• Time range when duplicates appeared

2. Confirm duplicates are real and scoped

• In admin or Metabase (per org conventions), list rows for ExternalIntegrationContractDetail (or equivalent reporting) filtered by {opportunity_id} or external id — expect one row per contract linked to that opportunity.
• Compare created timestamps across contracts: minutes apart usually means separate user or automation sessions, not a double-submit race on one click.

Example pattern (incident SPD-42524): Three contracts for one opportunity, created ~5 minutes apart; one middle contract with no intake responses (abandoned attempt).

3. Separate “bug” from “working as designed today”

If logs show multiple successful POSTs to contract creation / template-contract endpoints (see below) aligned with timestamps, engineering may classify this as WAI under current product rules while a product change (dedupe for non-terminal states, server-side idempotency) is tracked separately.

4. HTTP / GCP — prove distinct creation events

Use HTTP load balancer logs (prod project for the cluster, e.g. spotdraft-prod for US) around the reported window:

• Filter paths such as /api/v3/contracts/v2/template_contracts/ (adjust version if your investigation uses v2 public contracts — align with live routes).
• Group by httpRequest.remoteIp, timestamp, and path to show separate successful creates.

Preserve anonymized IPs in runbooks; only use full IPs under company policy.

Example query shape (adapt project, time range, path):

resource.type="http_load_balancer"
httpRequest.requestUrl:"/api/v3/contracts/v2/template_contracts/"

Narrow with httpRequest.remoteIp once a single actor is confirmed.

5. BigQuery — contract rows (if prod dataset access)

Map {cluster} → dataset (see contract-lookup / contract-signing-triage skills for prod_*_db naming). Example Prod US:

SELECT id, status, workflow_status, contract_kind, created, modified
FROM `spotdraft-prod.prod_usa_db.public_contracts_v3_contractv3`
WHERE workspace_id = {workspace_id}
  AND created >= TIMESTAMP('{start_ts}')
  AND created <= TIMESTAMP('{end_ts}')
ORDER BY created ASC

Cross-check multiple rows with same business context via integration tables (naming differs by env; use Metabase/admin if ORM table names are unclear).

6. Settings check

• allow_duplicate_execution_version: If true, the SFDC flow intentionally skips dedupe — duplicates are more likely. Verify in workspace/opportunity configuration via admin (exact navigation is product-internal).

7. Correlate with hidden-questionnaire regressions

If contract dates fall in a known hidden integration-mapped questions incident window (e.g. March 4–17, 2026 per internal comms), missing data on the first contract may have caused the user to retry the widget. That does not change the duplicate-creation mechanics but explains why multiple sessions occurred. Use questionnaire-hidden-variable-data-loss for the data issue.

Mitigation (customer unblock)

1. Agree which single contract is canonical (often the most complete — questionnaire responses, documents — not necessarily the oldest).
2. Void duplicate contracts via admin change URLs for the environment, e.g. https://api.{region}.spotdraft.com/admin/contracts_v3/contractv3/{contract_id}/change/ (replace region/host per cluster conventions).
3. Confirm voided contracts are excluded from reporting and customer-facing lists.
4. Document allow_duplicate_execution_version for the workspace if duplicates must not recur operationally before a product fix.

Long-Term Fix Directions (engineering / product)

These options were discussed as pod-level work — track in Jira; not all may be scheduled:

1. Broaden “existing contract” checks beyond SIGN (e.g. any non-terminal state for same opportunity + template) and surface a warning modal before creating another.
2. On SFDC widget load, resolve ExternalIntegrationContractDetail (or backend equivalent) for active links to the opportunity and redirect to the existing contract instead of template selection.
3. Server-side idempotency: same (workspace, opportunity_id, template_id) while a contract is in a non-terminal state → return existing contract instead of creating a new one.

Escalation Triggers

• Duplicates created without multiple HTTP creates (investigate race/idempotency at API layer).
• Duplicates across different opportunities or templates (likely different root cause).
• Automation in Salesforce firing widget URLs or integrations repeatedly — engage CS + customer SFDC admin.

Related Incidents / Tracking

• Jira: SPD-42524 — Lighcast duplicate contract creation from Salesforce opportunity (incident thread March 2026).
• Rootly: incident 3016 (duplicate contract creation from Salesforce opportunity) — used for timeline / status.

Known example identifiers (do not treat as live data — for pattern only): Opportunity 0Q0RQ000004NdhV0AS, WSID 259502, contracts 1429870 / 1429872 / 1429873, cluster US, Mar 14 2026.

Connections to Other Skills

• questionnaire-hidden-variable-data-loss — missing fields motivating retries.
• contract-lookup — resolving workspace, cluster, and contract identity.
• contract-signing-triage — if one duplicate progressed to signing and others did not.
• hubspot-sfdc-conditional-overpersistence — different problem (conditional hidden field persistence / cleanup), not duplicate creation.