This is a wireframe

The two to look at first — drawn in full

Home — the dashboard: three tiles of inventory, and then, in a panel of its own with the breakdown inside it, the one figure that exists nowhere else in Isha Connect — how many people we cannot reach, split by whether somebody should act on it or it is settled; a breakdown by place; the four stages as counts with volunteering held apart from them; and messages sent month by month. The scope and month filters at the top of it really move everything below. And Members — seven columns including whether we can actually reach somebody, three ways in (import a sheet, add one by hand, set group membership directly), and a bulk stage change that goes through a preview shaped like the import one. The filters, the ticking and that preview really work; almost nothing else in this wireframe does.

The shell — drawn in full

The platform bar with the Isha Connect wordmark, the search and the avatar; and Messaging’s own navigation, as a rail above 1024px and a drawer below it. Every item on the navigation is there and pressable, including the ones the owner has not come to yet.

Drawn in full, ahead of being asked for

Groups and a group, the spreadsheet import and its preview, taking over an existing group, compose and its review, approvals, places, sender numbers and settings. These were built before the scope narrowed. They are complete screens rather than half-built ones, and they are left reachable so nothing has to be rebuilt — but they are not what is being asked about this week.

Not drawn, deliberately

The chat portal. It is on the navigation because the navigation is being reviewed and because the decision to have one has already been made. The screen itself says what has been settled about it and what has not, rather than guessing.

Column mapping for an arbitrary sheet

Step 2 shows a mapping that has already been guessed. The interaction that matters — dragging a column somebody named “Mob No.” onto Phone, and being stopped when it holds ages — is not drawn, because it is an interaction rather than a screen.

Video and audio

The specification lists them and flags them as the likeliest to fail on a modest phone. The compose screen carries a PDF only. The size limit is a question, not a decision, so drawing a control for it would invent an answer.

Moderation and reply routing

M11 in the roadmap, and nothing in features.md says what a coordinator does when somebody replies. Left out rather than guessed.

The downloadable template's contents

Six columns are described in words on the upload screen. The sheet itself is not generated.

Posting windows in any detail

A group says whether it is admin-only, open, or opened on Sundays. The schedule editor behind that — the owner's Group mock has one — is a screen this wireframe does not draw.

Who may approve

The threshold is drawn; the role that clears it is not, because it lives in the hub's role model and is still an open question with Swami Nandakara.

A member changing their phone number

Open question 4 in features.md, and the one with the sharpest consequence: the number is how somebody is identified in WhatsApp. There is no screen for it because there is no answer yet.

Tamil names for the four stages

ஆர்வலர், ஏழு நாள், மண்டலம், தியானி. Guesses. Open question 3 asks whether groups and messages are named in Tamil, English or both, and these should be checked by somebody who would use them.

The region names

Six regions, invented as a plausible split of Tamil Nadu. Open question 2 says the tree should be the hub's, not Messaging's own copy.

The approval threshold of 5,000

The specification says there is a threshold and that it is a setting. It does not say what it is.

What an activity is

Open question 5. Drawn: arriving on a sheet, a progression, an add, a refusal, a stop. Not drawn: messages sent to a group, which would write a row per person per broadcast.

The duplicate-name rule

Two similar names at the same centre are flagged and never merged, which is the decision. HOW similar is not stated, so the wireframe uses a crude transliteration test — Sumathi/Sumathy, Srinivasan/Sreenivasan. Being crude is what makes it a flag rather than a decision, but the exact rule is invented.

Which groups can be set directly

The specification says group membership can be set on its own as well as following from a stage. It does not say which groups; the wireframe offers the volunteer, cohort and above-a-centre groups, on the reasoning that a stage group should follow from the stage.

The conversion figures

Potential → Meditator, computed from the invented centre counts rather than typed in. They live on a place's own screen; the home page used to draw them as a funnel and no longer does. The rates themselves are guesses.

Messages sent, month by month

Invented, from each centre's size, with a February bump for Mahashivratri. A message is counted as one thing somebody composed and sent, however many groups it fanned out to. The month we are standing in is drawn hatched because it is only part-way through.

The three “cannot reach” rates

0.52% stopped, 0.13% not on WhatsApp, 0.94% awaiting an invite. Applied evenly, from one definition shared by the home page's roll-up and every compose review, so the two can never disagree. In the real application these are three queries.

The 3 approvals and everything in them

Invented, including the people who raised them.