@oneuptime/common 12.0.7 → 12.0.9

package/Server/Services/UserNotificationRuleService.ts

@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
 import DatabaseConfig from "../DatabaseConfig";
 import CreateBy from "../Types/Database/CreateBy";
-import { OnCreate } from "../Types/Database/Hooks";
+import DeleteBy from "../Types/Database/DeleteBy";
+import Query from "../Types/Database/Query";
+import UpdateBy from "../Types/Database/UpdateBy";
+import { OnCreate, OnDelete, OnUpdate } from "../Types/Database/Hooks";
+import DatabaseRequestType from "../Types/BaseDatabase/DatabaseRequestType";
+import TenantPermission from "../Types/Database/Permissions/TenantPermission";
 import Markdown, { MarkdownContentType } from "../Types/Markdown";
 import CallService from "./CallService";
 import DatabaseService from "./DatabaseService";
@@ -14,6 +19,24 @@ import TelegramService from "./TelegramService";
 import WebhookService from "./WebhookService";
 import WhatsAppService from "./WhatsAppService";
 import UserEmailService from "./UserEmailService";
+import UserCallService from "./UserCallService";
+import UserPushService from "./UserPushService";
+import UserSmsService from "./UserSmsService";
+import UserTelegramService from "./UserTelegramService";
+import UserWebhookService from "./UserWebhookService";
+import UserWhatsAppService from "./UserWhatsAppService";
+import ProjectService from "./ProjectService";
+import UserNotificationRuleAdminService, {
+  RuleColumnCarrier,
+  NotificationMethodReference,
+} from "./UserNotificationRuleAdminService";
+import OnCallReadinessService, {
+  ReadinessMethod,
+  ReadinessMethodType,
+  ReadinessStatus,
+  ResponderSource,
+  UserReadiness,
+} from "./OnCallReadinessService";
 import UserOnCallLogService from "./UserOnCallLogService";
 import UserOnCallLogTimelineService from "./UserOnCallLogTimelineService";
 import { AppApiRoute } from "../../ServiceRoute";
@@ -21,9 +44,13 @@ import Hostname from "../../Types/API/Hostname";
 import Protocol from "../../Types/API/Protocol";
 import Route from "../../Types/API/Route";
 import URL from "../../Types/API/URL";
+import AuditLogAction from "../../Types/AuditLog/AuditLogAction";
+import DatabaseCommonInteractionProps from "../../Types/BaseDatabase/DatabaseCommonInteractionProps";
 import CallRequest from "../../Types/Call/CallRequest";
-import { LIMIT_PER_PROJECT } from "../../Types/Database/LimitMax";
+import SortOrder from "../../Types/BaseDatabase/SortOrder";
+import LIMIT_MAX, { LIMIT_PER_PROJECT } from "../../Types/Database/LimitMax";
 import QueryHelper from "../Types/Database/QueryHelper";
+import Sort from "../Types/Database/Sort";
 import Dictionary from "../../Types/Dictionary";
 import Email from "../../Types/Email";
 import EmailMessage from "../../Types/Email/EmailMessage";
@@ -49,8 +76,16 @@ import UserNotificationExecutionStatus from "../../Types/UserNotification/UserNo
 import UserNotificationStatus from "../../Types/UserNotification/UserNotificationStatus";
 import Incident from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/Incident";
 import IncidentSeverity from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/IncidentSeverity";
+import Monitor from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/Monitor";
+import Project from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/Project";
 import ShortLink from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/ShortLink";
+import UserCall from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserCall";
 import UserEmail from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserEmail";
+import UserPush from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserPush";
+import UserSMS from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserSMS";
+import UserTelegram from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserTelegram";
+import UserWebhook from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserWebhook";
+import UserWhatsApp from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserWhatsApp";
 import Model from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserNotificationRule";
 import UserOnCallLog from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserOnCallLog";
 import UserOnCallLogTimeline from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/UserOnCallLogTimeline";
@@ -64,6 +99,8 @@ import AlertEpisodeMember from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/AlertEpisodeMember";
 import AlertEpisodeMemberService from "./AlertEpisodeMemberService";
 import IncidentEpisode from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/IncidentEpisode";
 import IncidentEpisodeService from "./IncidentEpisodeService";
+import IncidentEpisodeMember from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/IncidentEpisodeMember";
+import IncidentEpisodeMemberService from "./IncidentEpisodeMemberService";
 import WorkspaceNotificationRule from "../../Models/DatabaseModels/WorkspaceNotificationRule";
 import WorkspaceNotificationRuleService from "./WorkspaceNotificationRuleService";
 import PushNotificationService from "./PushNotificationService";
@@ -84,6 +121,450 @@ export interface NotificationMethodDescriptor {
   userWebhookId?: ObjectID;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Everything a single delivery attempt needs to know about the page it is
+ * carrying: which project, which entity fired it, which escalation produced it,
+ * and which UserOnCallLog row it must reconcile against. This used to be an
+ * inline object literal on executeNotificationRuleItem; it is named here because
+ * the fallback path (executeFallbackNotification) hands the very same bundle to
+ * the very same delivery code, and because callers outside this file now need to
+ * be able to type a variable against it.
+ */
+export interface ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions {
+  projectId: ObjectID;
+  triggeredByIncidentId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  triggeredByAlertId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  triggeredByAlertEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  userNotificationEventType: UserNotificationEventType;
+  onCallPolicyExecutionLogId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  onCallPolicyId: ObjectID | undefined;
+  onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  userNotificationLogId: ObjectID;
+  userBelongsToTeamId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  onCallScheduleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+}
+
+export interface ExecuteFallbackNotificationOptions
+  extends ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions {
+  userId: ObjectID;
+  userOnCallLogId: ObjectID;
+  ruleType: NotificationRuleType;
+  // Only used to explain, in prose, which severity had no rule configured.
+  severityName: string;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Why the fallback returns an outcome and not just a boolean.
+ *
+ * Its caller (UserOnCallLogService.onCreateSuccess) has to pick a
+ * UserNotificationExecutionStatus out of the answer, and
+ * UserNotificationExecutionStatus.Error is TERMINAL — ExecutePendingExecutions
+ * selects Executing and TimeoutStuckExecutions selects Started, so nothing
+ * anywhere re-selects an Error log. That makes the two ways of not notifying
+ * somebody opposites rather than synonyms: "this responder has nothing we can
+ * page them on" is a real, permanent misconfiguration worth burning the log
+ * for, while "the send raised" is a bad minute that a terminal status would
+ * turn into a permanently dropped page. Both are `notified: false`, so the
+ * difference has to survive the return or the caller cannot act on it.
+ */
+export enum FallbackNotificationOutcome {
+  /*
+   * A page was handed to at least one sender. Nothing below observes what the
+   * sender then did with it — every send in deliverNotificationForRule is
+   * fire-and-forget — so this means dispatched, not received.
+   */
+  Delivered = "Delivered",
+
+  /*
+   * There was nothing to try. The responder has no verified method the
+   * fallback may use and no webhook, or the only paid channels they have are
+   * switched off at the project level. Permanent: a retry finds the same
+   * nothing, and only a human adding a notification method changes it.
+   */
+  NoUsableNotificationMethod = "NoUsableNotificationMethod",
+
+  /*
+   * There was something to try and none of it went out: a send raised, or a
+   * chosen channel had no template for this event type, or another run already
+   * holds the fallback claim on this log and owns the outcome. All three are
+   * transient from the caller's point of view — none of them is evidence that
+   * the responder is unreachable, so none of them justifies a terminal status.
+   */
+  DeliveryFailed = "DeliveryFailed",
+}
+
+export interface FallbackNotificationResult {
+  outcome: FallbackNotificationOutcome;
+  /*
+   * Mirror of `outcome === FallbackNotificationOutcome.Delivered`, kept because
+   * most read sites only want the yes/no and re-deriving the comparison at each
+   * one is how a caller ends up asserting the wrong half of the enum.
+   */
+  notified: boolean;
+  channelsUsed: Array<string>;
+}
+
+/*
+ * The fallback is not tied to any UserNotificationRule row — there is no rule,
+ * which is the whole reason it runs — so it claims the on-call log under this
+ * reserved literal instead of a rule id. `executedNotificationRules` is a jsonb
+ * map keyed by arbitrary text, so the literal sits beside real rule uuids and
+ * can never collide with one.
+ */
+export const FALLBACK_NOTIFICATION_CLAIM_KEY: string = "__fallback__";
+
+/*
+ * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ * DELETION IMPACT — "what would I lose by deleting this?", asked BEFORE the
+ * delete.
+ *
+ * Two writes a responder makes about their own configuration can take away the
+ * only thing standing between a page and nobody hearing it, and neither one
+ * looks like that from the screen it is made on:
+ *
+ *   - Deleting a RULE can remove the LAST rule covering one
+ *     (ruleType x severity) cell. The rule table is a list of rows, not a
+ *     coverage grid, so "this is the only thing left for Sev1 incidents" is
+ *     visible nowhere at the moment somebody clicks delete.
+ *
+ *   - Deleting a METHOD CASCADES. Every method foreign key on
+ *     UserNotificationRule is onDelete: "CASCADE" — and each method service
+ *     deletes the rows in its own onBeforeDelete as well, so the cascade
+ *     happens whether or not the database does it — which means removing one
+ *     phone number destroys every rule that pointed at it. The delete dialog
+ *     for a phone number mentions notification rules nowhere at all. This is
+ *     the more dangerous of the two by a distance, because the loss is not even
+ *     the thing being deleted.
+ *
+ * Everything here is ADVISORY and is deliberately shaped as a QUESTION the
+ * caller asks first, not as a hook that throws. The deletion still goes through
+ * the ordinary CRUD path afterwards and nothing below can stop it, for two
+ * reasons. The first is that this is the user's own configuration and they are
+ * entitled to it — turning "I do not want to be woken by Sev4 alerts" into
+ * something a human needs permission for is a worse product than the accident
+ * it prevents. The second is that a throwing hook would break the LEGITIMATE
+ * deletes too: a user leaving a project, an admin retiring a decommissioned
+ * number, a team cleaning up after a migration. The goal is not that nobody
+ * does this. It is that nobody does it by accident.
+ *
+ * "Is this person on call anywhere" is answered by OnCallReadinessService and
+ * is never re-derived here. A second answer to that question that disagreed
+ * with the readiness page would be worse than no answer: an admin who is told
+ * "you are not on call" by a delete dialog and "NotReachable on 3 policies" by
+ * the readiness table has no way to know which one to believe, and will end up
+ * believing the reassuring one.
+ * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ */
+
+/*
+ * The channel vocabulary is ReadinessMethodType, re-exported under the name the
+ * deletion API uses. Sharing one enum with readiness (which in turn shares its
+ * literals with the fallback's `channelsUsed`) means an operator reading
+ * "Telegram" in a delete warning, "Telegram" in the readiness table and
+ * "notified via fallback (Telegram)" in an execution log is reading the same
+ * word about the same thing. It is also what lets a notification-method service
+ * name its own channel without importing the readiness module.
+ */
+export { ReadinessMethodType as NotificationMethodChannel };
+
+/**
+ * One (ruleType x severity) cell that has at least one rule now and would have
+ * none after the deletion.
+ *
+ * A cell that merely loses SOME of its rules is not here. That is deliberate
+ * and it matches the coverage model readiness renders: a cell with two rules on
+ * two different methods is covered, a cell with one rule is covered, and only a
+ * cell with zero is a gap. Reporting "you will be paged on one fewer channel"
+ * with the same weight as "you will not be paged at all" is how a warning
+ * surface trains people to click through it.
+ */
+export interface CoverageLossCell {
+  ruleType: NotificationRuleType;
+  /**
+   * Undefined only for the two handoff rule types, which carry no severity.
+   * Those are reported separately (handoffNotificationsLost), so in practice
+   * every cell in `coverageLost` has one.
+   */
+  severityId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+  severityName?: string | undefined;
+  /** How many rules this deletion takes out of this cell. Always >= 1. */
+  rulesRemoved: number;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Whether anything will still be able to page this user once the deletion has
+ * happened.
+ *
+ * Four values rather than a boolean because two of the four are things this
+ * preview knows FOR CERTAIN and two are not, and collapsing them would mean
+ * either inventing a false green or crying wolf at everybody.
+ *
+ * The certainty comes from one structural fact: a method must be verified to be
+ * used at all, and of the seven channels, Push, Email and Webhook have no
+ * project switch that can turn them off (see OnCallReadinessService.
+ * isChannelEnabled — the first two are zero-cost and the third is somebody
+ * else's endpoint). So "no verified method survives" is definitely unreachable,
+ * and "a verified Push/Email/Webhook survives" is definitely reachable. What is
+ * left over — a user whose surviving methods are all on the four paid channels
+ * — depends on project settings this preview does not read, and says so.
+ */
+export enum PostDeletionReachability {
+  /** A verified method on a channel no project setting can disable survives. */
+  Reachable = "Reachable",
+
+  /**
+   * Verified methods survive, but every one of them is on a paid channel
+   * (SMS, Call, WhatsApp, Telegram) that the project can switch off. Whether
+   * this user can still be paged is a project setting, and the readiness page
+   * is the surface that knows.
+   */
+  DependsOnProjectSettings = "DependsOnProjectSettings",
+
+  /**
+   * Nothing verified survives. This deletion is the one that takes away the
+   * last way of reaching this person — no rule, and no fallback either, since
+   * the fallback needs a verified method too.
+   */
+  NotReachable = "NotReachable",
+
+  /**
+   * They could not be paged before this deletion either. Worth its own value
+   * rather than being folded into NotReachable: the sentence an admin needs is
+   * "this was already broken", not "you are about to break it".
+   */
+  AlreadyNotReachable = "AlreadyNotReachable",
+
+  /**
+   * Readiness had no answer — the user is not a member of this project, or has
+   * no User row. Never guessed at, because a guess here is exactly the false
+   * green this whole feature exists to prevent.
+   */
+  Unknown = "Unknown",
+}
+
+export interface NotificationDeletionImpact {
+  projectId: ObjectID;
+  userId: ObjectID;
+
+  /**
+   * Whether this user is reachable by ANY on-call policy in the project, and by
+   * which doors. Straight from OnCallReadinessService, never re-derived.
+   */
+  isOnCallResponder: boolean;
+  reachedVia: Array<ResponderSource>;
+
+  /** How many UserNotificationRule rows this deletion would remove in total. */
+  rulesDeletedCount: number;
+
+  coverageLost: Array<CoverageLossCell>;
+
+  /**
+   * The shift-change notifications ("you are now on call") that would stop.
+   * Kept apart from coverageLost because nobody is waiting on one of these and
+   * mixing them in would put a missed Sev1 page and a missed courtesy note in
+   * the same list at the same weight.
+   */
+  handoffNotificationsLost: Array<NotificationRuleType>;
+
+  reachability: PostDeletionReachability;
+
+  /** Verified methods that would remain. Zero is what makes NotReachable true. */
+  verifiedMethodCountAfterDeletion: number;
+
+  /**
+   * Whether a page with no matching rule still falls back to this user's
+   * verified methods. It decides whether losing a cell means "the page arrives
+   * on the wrong channel" or "the page is dropped", which is the difference
+   * between an annoyance and an outage.
+   */
+  isFallbackEnabled: boolean;
+
+  /**
+   * TRUE means this answer is INCOMPLETE — the read of this user's rules hit
+   * its page ceiling. Reported rather than swallowed because the two directions
+   * it can be wrong in are not symmetric: unread rules that would have SURVIVED
+   * make this over-warn (harmless), unread rules that would have been DELETED
+   * make it under-warn, which is the failure mode that matters.
+   */
+  isTruncated: boolean;
+
+  /**
+   * Sentences to show the human, most consequential first. Each one names a
+   * specific thing that is lost and what happens because of it — the same
+   * contract as OnCallReadinessService's `reasons`, because these two surfaces
+   * are read by the same person about the same configuration and must not
+   * sound like two different products.
+   */
+  warnings: Array<string>;
+}
+
+/** The notification method row a deletion preview is about, once resolved. */
+interface DeletedNotificationMethod {
+  methodType: ReadinessMethodType;
+  userId: ObjectID;
+  /**
+   * Whether the row being deleted was itself usable. An unverified method is
+   * never used by anything, so deleting one cannot change reachability — and
+   * counting it as a loss would put a scary sentence in front of somebody
+   * cleaning up a typo'd phone number they never confirmed.
+   */
+  isVerified: boolean;
+}
+
+/** One (ruleType x severity) cell while the before/after picture is built. */
+interface DeletionCellState {
+  ruleType: NotificationRuleType;
+  severityKind: SeverityKind;
+  severityId: string;
+  rulesBefore: number;
+  rulesRemoved: number;
+  /**
+   * Whether an opt-out row for this cell SURVIVES the deletion. A surviving
+   * opt-out means the silence is deliberate and losing the last rule is not a
+   * gap; an opt-out that is itself being deleted must not suppress the warning,
+   * because after the write there is neither a rule nor a stated intention.
+   */
+  hasOptOut: boolean;
+}
+
+/** The same before/after picture for a rule type that carries no severity. */
+interface DeletionHandoffState {
+  rulesBefore: number;
+  rulesRemoved: number;
+  hasOptOut: boolean;
+}
+
+/** A severity's display name and its position in the project's own ordering. */
+interface DeletionSeverityRef {
+  name: string;
+  rank: number;
+}
+
+enum SeverityKind {
+  Incident = "Incident",
+  Alert = "Alert",
+}
+
+interface PagingRuleTypeScope {
+  ruleType: NotificationRuleType;
+  severityKind: SeverityKind;
+  severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId" | "alertSeverityId";
+  /** Plural noun for the warning sentence: "no rule covers Sev1 incidents". */
+  subjectNoun: string;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Which severity column scopes which rule type. This is the same table
+ * OnCallReadinessService keeps as RULE_TYPE_SCOPES and it has to stay in
+ * agreement with it: an alert rule matched against an incident severity id
+ * matches nothing at runtime, so a preview that paired them would report a cell
+ * as covered by a rule that can never fire — the exact shape of Gap G, where
+ * episode rules were written with a NULL severity and were unreachable and
+ * invisible at the same time. The severity is always taken from the column the
+ * RULE TYPE dictates, never from whichever one happens to be populated.
+ */
+const PAGING_RULE_TYPE_SCOPES: Array<PagingRuleTypeScope> = [
+  {
+    ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT,
+    severityKind: SeverityKind.Incident,
+    severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId",
+    subjectNoun: "incidents",
+  },
+  {
+    ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT_EPISODE,
+    severityKind: SeverityKind.Incident,
+    severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId",
+    subjectNoun: "incident episodes",
+  },
+  {
+    ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT,
+    severityKind: SeverityKind.Alert,
+    severityColumn: "alertSeverityId",
+    subjectNoun: "alerts",
+  },
+  {
+    ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT_EPISODE,
+    severityKind: SeverityKind.Alert,
+    severityColumn: "alertSeverityId",
+    subjectNoun: "alert episodes",
+  },
+];
+
+/*
+ * The two rule types that are about the user's shift rather than about anything
+ * that fired. They carry no severity, so they are one cell each.
+ */
+const HANDOFF_RULE_TYPES: Array<NotificationRuleType> = [
+  NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_ON_CALL,
+  NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_OFF_CALL,
+];
+
+type ChannelListFunction = () => Array<string>;
+
+/**
+ * The three channels no project setting can switch off. Push and Email are
+ * zero-cost and Webhook is somebody else's endpoint, so nothing gates them —
+ * which is what makes "a verified one of these survives" a CERTAIN answer to
+ * "can this person still be paged" rather than a hopeful one. Kept in step with
+ * OnCallReadinessService.isChannelEnabled, which returns true for exactly these
+ * three unconditionally.
+ *
+ * A FUNCTION rather than a module-level constant, and that is load-bearing
+ * rather than stylistic: this module and OnCallReadinessService import each
+ * other, so whichever one is loaded second sees the other's exports still
+ * empty. Reading ReadinessMethodType while this module is being evaluated
+ * therefore throws on ONE of the two load orders and not the other — a crash
+ * that depends on which file some unrelated caller happened to import first,
+ * which is about the worst possible failure to debug. Read on call, both orders
+ * are long since settled. The same rule applies to every enum below that comes
+ * from OnCallReadinessService.
+ */
+const channelsWithNoProjectSwitch: ChannelListFunction = (): Array<string> => {
+  return [
+    ReadinessMethodType.Push,
+    ReadinessMethodType.Email,
+    ReadinessMethodType.Webhook,
+  ];
+};
+
+type ResponderSourceProseFunction = (source: ResponderSource) => string;
+
+/**
+ * How each responder source reads in a sentence. The enum values are single
+ * words chosen for a chip; a warning has room to say what they mean, and
+ * "Override" on its own tells a user nothing about why they are on call.
+ *
+ * The map is built inside the call for the module-evaluation reason above —
+ * a computed key is read at definition time, so a module-level Record would
+ * carry exactly the same load-order crash. Typed as a full Record so that a new
+ * ResponderSource fails to compile here rather than rendering as a blank.
+ */
+const responderSourceProse: ResponderSourceProseFunction = (
+  source: ResponderSource,
+): string => {
+  const prose: Record<ResponderSource, string> = {
+    [ResponderSource.Direct]: "directly on an escalation rule",
+    [ResponderSource.Team]: "through a team",
+    [ResponderSource.Schedule]: "through a schedule",
+    [ResponderSource.Override]: "through an override",
+  };
+
+  return prose[source];
+};
+
+/*
+ * Rows per page for the rule read, and a ceiling on how many pages one preview
+ * may take. LIMIT_PER_PROJECT is the largest read the database layer will
+ * serve, so it is the biggest page that survives a round trip. One user's rules
+ * are bounded by (rule types x severities x methods) and land far below one
+ * page in any real project; the loop exists so that the one project where that
+ * is not true gets a truthful answer instead of a silently truncated one.
+ */
+const DELETION_IMPACT_PAGE_SIZE: number = LIMIT_PER_PROJECT;
+const MAX_DELETION_IMPACT_PAGES: number = 50;
+
 export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   public constructor() {
     super(Model);
@@ -92,21 +573,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   @CaptureSpan()
   public async executeNotificationRuleItem(
     userNotificationRuleId: ObjectID,
-    options: {
-      projectId: ObjectID;
-      triggeredByIncidentId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByAlertId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByAlertEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      userNotificationEventType: UserNotificationEventType;
-      onCallPolicyExecutionLogId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallPolicyId: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      userNotificationLogId: ObjectID;
-      userBelongsToTeamId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallScheduleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-    },
+    options: ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions,
   ): Promise<void> {
     /*
      * Atomically claim this rule for this on-call log BEFORE sending, so two
@@ -132,36 +599,51 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
       select: {
         _id: true,
         userId: true,
+        /*
+         * Every method relation also selects its OWN userId, which none of the
+         * channel blocks below read. It is here for the ownership check that
+         * runs before delivery: the address a page is sent to comes from these
+         * relations, while whose page it is comes from the rule's userId, and
+         * nothing in the ORM ever compares the two. See
+         * getNotificationMethodsNotOwnedByRuleOwner.
+         */
         userCall: {
           phone: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userSms: {
           phone: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userWhatsApp: {
           phone: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userTelegram: {
           telegramChatId: true,
           telegramUserHandle: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userWebhook: {
           webhookUrl: true,
           name: true,
           secret: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userEmail: {
           email: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
         userPush: {
           deviceToken: true,
           deviceType: true,
           isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
         },
       },
       props: {
@@ -174,24 +656,163 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
     }
 
     /*
-     * If the project has a default Twilio config set, use it for all
-     * team-member SMS and Calls in this rule. Otherwise the global config
-     * is used by the notification service.
+     * The last line of defence, and the only one that survives every write path
+     * — including ones that do not exist yet.
+     *
+     * The write-side guards in UserNotificationRuleAdminService stop a rule
+     * whose ownership column and method relation name different people from
+     * being SAVED. This stops one that somehow exists from being ACTED ON: a
+     * row written before those guards landed, one written by internal code
+     * running as root, or one written through a path a future change forgets to
+     * route through them. Without it, a single bad row silently redirects a
+     * responder's pages for as long as nobody thinks to compare two columns
+     * that no screen shows side by side.
      */
-    const projectTwilioConfig: TwilioConfig | undefined =
-      await ProjectCallSMSConfigService.getProjectDefaultTwilioConfig(
-        options.projectId,
+    const mismatchedChannels: Array<string> =
+      this.getNotificationMethodsNotOwnedByRuleOwner(notificationRuleItem);
+
+    if (mismatchedChannels.length > 0) {
+      await this.recordMismatchedNotificationMethod(
+        notificationRuleItem,
+        options,
+        mismatchedChannels,
       );
 
+      return;
+    }
+
+    await this.deliverNotificationForRule(notificationRuleItem, options);
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Which of a rule's method relations are owned by somebody other than the
+   * rule itself.
+   *
+   * Only a method whose userId was actually LOADED and actually DISAGREES is
+   * reported. An unselected column arrives as `undefined`, and reading absence
+   * as disagreement would turn this guard into a page-dropping machine on every
+   * caller that does not select userId — precisely the failure this whole epic
+   * exists to eliminate. Silence here means "no evidence of a mismatch", which
+   * is the only safe default for a check that can suppress a page.
+   */
+  private getNotificationMethodsNotOwnedByRuleOwner(
+    notificationRuleItem: Model,
+  ): Array<string> {
+    const ruleOwnerUserId: ObjectID | undefined = notificationRuleItem.userId;
+
+    if (!ruleOwnerUserId) {
+      /*
+       * An unowned rule cannot be paged for anybody in the first place — the
+       * caller found it by id, not by owner — so there is no owner to compare
+       * against and nothing to report.
+       */
+      return [];
+    }
+
+    const methodOwners: Array<{
+      label: string;
+      ownerUserId: ObjectID | undefined;
+    }> = [
+      { label: "Email", ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.userId },
+      { label: "SMS", ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userSms?.userId },
+      { label: "Call", ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userCall?.userId },
+      {
+        label: "WhatsApp",
+        ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.userId,
+      },
+      {
+        label: "Telegram",
+        ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userTelegram?.userId,
+      },
+      { label: "Push", ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userPush?.userId },
+      {
+        label: "Webhook",
+        ownerUserId: notificationRuleItem.userWebhook?.userId,
+      },
+    ];
+
+    const mismatched: Array<string> = [];
+
+    for (const methodOwner of methodOwners) {
+      if (
+        methodOwner.ownerUserId &&
+        methodOwner.ownerUserId.toString() !== ruleOwnerUserId.toString()
+      ) {
+        mismatched.push(methodOwner.label);
+      }
+    }
+
+    return mismatched;
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Refuse the whole rule, not merely the offending channel.
+   *
+   * A rule with a foreign method on it is not a rule with one bad field; it is
+   * a row somebody wrote to redirect a page, and delivering its other channels
+   * would let the row keep working well enough to escape notice. The timeline
+   * row is the point: it is the surface a responder and an operator both read,
+   * and it names the channel so the mismatch can be found and repaired rather
+   * than merely felt as a page that never arrived.
+   */
+  private async recordMismatchedNotificationMethod(
+    notificationRuleItem: Model,
+    options: ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions,
+    mismatchedChannels: Array<string>,
+  ): Promise<void> {
+    logger.error(
+      `Notification rule ${notificationRuleItem.id?.toString()} was not executed: its ${mismatchedChannels.join(
+        ", ",
+      )} notification method does not belong to the user the rule belongs to (${notificationRuleItem.userId?.toString()}).`,
+    );
+
+    const logTimelineItem: UserOnCallLogTimeline = this.buildLogTimelineItem(
+      notificationRuleItem,
+      options,
+    );
+
+    logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Error;
+    logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Notification not sent because the ${mismatchedChannels.join(
+      ", ",
+    )} notification method on this rule belongs to a different user. Please review this notification rule.`;
+
+    await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+      data: logTimelineItem,
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Build the timeline row every channel block stamps its status onto.
+   *
+   * Callers keep ONE instance and mutate it, because after the first create()
+   * the instance carries an _id and a second create() with it UPDATEs the row
+   * it already wrote instead of inserting a new one. Anything that needs a row
+   * genuinely independent of the delivery attempts (the fell-through guard
+   * below) must therefore call this again for a fresh instance rather than
+   * reuse the one the channel blocks have been writing to.
+   */
+  private buildLogTimelineItem(
+    notificationRuleItem: Model,
+    options: ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions,
+  ): UserOnCallLogTimeline {
     const logTimelineItem: UserOnCallLogTimeline = new UserOnCallLogTimeline();
     logTimelineItem.projectId = options.projectId;
     logTimelineItem.userNotificationLogId = options.userNotificationLogId;
-    logTimelineItem.userNotificationRuleId = userNotificationRuleId;
-    logTimelineItem.userNotificationLogId = options.userNotificationLogId;
     logTimelineItem.userId = notificationRuleItem.userId!;
     logTimelineItem.userNotificationEventType =
       options.userNotificationEventType;
 
+    /*
+     * The fallback delivers through rules it builds in memory and never saves,
+     * so there is not always a rule id to point the row at.
+     */
+    if (notificationRuleItem.id) {
+      logTimelineItem.userNotificationRuleId = notificationRuleItem.id;
+    }
+
     if (options.userBelongsToTeamId) {
       logTimelineItem.userBelongsToTeamId = options.userBelongsToTeamId;
     }
@@ -233,6 +854,56 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId;
     }
 
+    return logTimelineItem;
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * The delivery half of executeNotificationRuleItem: given a rule that is
+   * already loaded with its method relations, decide what to send on which
+   * channel and hand it to the senders.
+   *
+   * It is split out from the public method so executeFallbackNotification can
+   * reuse it with a rule it assembled in memory and never persisted. The claim
+   * and the rule lookup that the public method does first are meaningless for a
+   * rule that does not exist in the database; everything from here down is
+   * exactly what the fallback needs.
+   *
+   * Returns whether a page was actually handed to a sender, which the fallback
+   * needs and the normal path ignores. Resolving without throwing is NOT the
+   * same as having sent something: a rule whose channel has no block for this
+   * event type falls all the way through to the guard at the bottom, writes an
+   * Error row and sends nothing. A caller that read "did not throw" as "paged"
+   * would name a channel the responder never heard from.
+   */
+  private async deliverNotificationForRule(
+    notificationRuleItem: Model,
+    options: ExecuteNotificationRuleOptions,
+  ): Promise<boolean> {
+    /*
+     * If the project has a default Twilio config set, use it for all
+     * team-member SMS and Calls in this rule. Otherwise the global config
+     * is used by the notification service.
+     */
+    const projectTwilioConfig: TwilioConfig | undefined =
+      await ProjectCallSMSConfigService.getProjectDefaultTwilioConfig(
+        options.projectId,
+      );
+
+    const logTimelineItem: UserOnCallLogTimeline = this.buildLogTimelineItem(
+      notificationRuleItem,
+      options,
+    );
+
+    /*
+     * Which channels this rule could actually deliver on, and whether any block
+     * below matched the event type. If a channel is contactable but no branch
+     * claimed the event, the page vanishes without a trace — the guard at the
+     * end of this method turns that into a visible Error row.
+     */
+    const contactableChannels: Array<string> =
+      this.getContactableChannelNames(notificationRuleItem);
+    let deliveryAttempted: boolean = false;
+
     // add status and status message and save.
 
     let incident: Incident | null = null;
@@ -382,6 +1053,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         alert
       ) {
         // create an error log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending email to ${notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email.toString()}`;
         logTimelineItem.userEmailId = notificationRuleItem.userEmail.id!;
@@ -435,6 +1107,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         incident
       ) {
         // create an error log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending email to ${notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email.toString()}`;
         logTimelineItem.userEmailId = notificationRuleItem.userEmail.id!;
@@ -487,6 +1160,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending email to ${notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email.toString()}`;
         logTimelineItem.userEmailId = notificationRuleItem.userEmail.id!;
@@ -530,6 +1204,61 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           });
         });
       }
+
+      // send email for incident episode
+      if (
+        options.userNotificationEventType ===
+          UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
+        incidentEpisode
+      ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
+        logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
+        logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending email to ${notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email.toString()}`;
+        logTimelineItem.userEmailId = notificationRuleItem.userEmail.id!;
+
+        const updatedLog: UserOnCallLogTimeline =
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+            data: logTimelineItem,
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+
+        const emailMessage: EmailMessage =
+          await this.generateEmailTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+            notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email,
+            incidentEpisode,
+            updatedLog.id!,
+          );
+
+        /*
+         * No incidentEpisodeId is passed: MailService.sendMail accepts the key
+         * in its options type but never serialises it onto the request body, so
+         * passing it would look like a link that does not exist.
+         */
+        MailService.sendMail(emailMessage, {
+          userOnCallLogTimelineId: updatedLog.id!,
+          projectId: options.projectId,
+          userId: notificationRuleItem.userId!,
+          onCallPolicyId: options.onCallPolicyId,
+          onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId: options.onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId,
+          teamId: options.userBelongsToTeamId,
+          onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId:
+            options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId,
+          onCallScheduleId: options.onCallScheduleId,
+        }).catch(async (err: Error) => {
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.updateOneById({
+            id: updatedLog.id!,
+            data: {
+              status: UserNotificationStatus.Error,
+              statusMessage: err.message || "Error sending email.",
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+        });
+      }
     }
 
     // if you have an email but is not verified, then create a log.
@@ -561,6 +1290,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         alert
       ) {
         // create an error log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending SMS to ${notificationRuleItem.userSms?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userSmsId = notificationRuleItem.userSms.id!;
@@ -614,6 +1344,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         incident
       ) {
         // create an error log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending SMS to ${notificationRuleItem.userSms?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userSmsId = notificationRuleItem.userSms.id!;
@@ -667,6 +1398,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending SMS to ${notificationRuleItem.userSms?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userSmsId = notificationRuleItem.userSms.id!;
@@ -711,6 +1443,61 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           });
         });
       }
+
+      // send sms for incident episode
+      if (
+        options.userNotificationEventType ===
+          UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
+        incidentEpisode
+      ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
+        logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
+        logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending SMS to ${notificationRuleItem.userSms?.phone.toString()}.`;
+        logTimelineItem.userSmsId = notificationRuleItem.userSms.id!;
+
+        const updatedLog: UserOnCallLogTimeline =
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+            data: logTimelineItem,
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+
+        const smsMessage: SMS =
+          await this.generateSmsTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+            notificationRuleItem.userSms.phone,
+            incidentEpisode,
+            updatedLog.id!,
+          );
+
+        /*
+         * SmsService accepts incidentEpisodeId but drops it on the floor when
+         * building the request body, so it is deliberately not passed here.
+         */
+        SmsService.sendSms(smsMessage, {
+          projectId: incidentEpisode.projectId,
+          customTwilioConfig: projectTwilioConfig,
+          userOnCallLogTimelineId: updatedLog.id!,
+          userId: notificationRuleItem.userId!,
+          onCallPolicyId: options.onCallPolicyId,
+          onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId: options.onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId,
+          teamId: options.userBelongsToTeamId,
+          onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId:
+            options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId,
+          onCallScheduleId: options.onCallScheduleId,
+        }).catch(async (err: Error) => {
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.updateOneById({
+            id: updatedLog.id!,
+            data: {
+              status: UserNotificationStatus.Error,
+              statusMessage: err.message || "Error sending SMS.",
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+        });
+      }
     }
 
     if (
@@ -738,6 +1525,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertCreated &&
         alert
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending WhatsApp message to ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
@@ -787,6 +1575,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.IncidentCreated &&
         incident
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending WhatsApp message to ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
@@ -837,6 +1626,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending WhatsApp message to ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
@@ -880,20 +1670,74 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           });
         });
       }
-    }
 
-    if (
-      notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone &&
-      !notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.isVerified
-    ) {
-      logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Error;
-      logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `WhatsApp message not sent because phone ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()} is not verified.`;
-      logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
+      // send WhatsApp for incident episode
+      if (
+        options.userNotificationEventType ===
+          UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
+        incidentEpisode
+      ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
+        logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
+        logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending WhatsApp message to ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()}.`;
+        logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
 
-      await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
-        data: logTimelineItem,
-        props: {
-          isRoot: true,
+        const updatedLog: UserOnCallLogTimeline =
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+            data: logTimelineItem,
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+
+        const whatsAppMessage: WhatsAppMessage =
+          await this.generateWhatsAppTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+            notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.phone,
+            incidentEpisode,
+            updatedLog.id!,
+          );
+
+        /*
+         * WhatsAppService accepts incidentEpisodeId but never writes it onto
+         * the request body, so it is deliberately not passed here.
+         */
+        WhatsAppService.sendWhatsAppMessage(whatsAppMessage, {
+          projectId: incidentEpisode.projectId,
+          userOnCallLogTimelineId: updatedLog.id!,
+          userId: notificationRuleItem.userId!,
+          onCallPolicyId: options.onCallPolicyId,
+          onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId: options.onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId,
+          teamId: options.userBelongsToTeamId,
+          onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId:
+            options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId,
+          onCallScheduleId: options.onCallScheduleId,
+        }).catch(async (err: Error) => {
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.updateOneById({
+            id: updatedLog.id!,
+            data: {
+              status: UserNotificationStatus.Error,
+              statusMessage: err.message || "Error sending WhatsApp message.",
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+        });
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone &&
+      !notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Error;
+      logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `WhatsApp message not sent because phone ${notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone.toString()} is not verified.`;
+      logTimelineItem.userWhatsAppId = notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp.id!;
+
+      await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+        data: logTimelineItem,
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
         },
       });
     }
@@ -908,6 +1752,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertCreated &&
         alert
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending Telegram message.`;
         logTimelineItem.userTelegramId = notificationRuleItem.userTelegram.id!;
@@ -960,6 +1805,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.IncidentCreated &&
         incident
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending Telegram message.`;
         logTimelineItem.userTelegramId = notificationRuleItem.userTelegram.id!;
@@ -1012,6 +1858,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending Telegram message.`;
         logTimelineItem.userTelegramId = notificationRuleItem.userTelegram.id!;
@@ -1058,6 +1905,62 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           });
         });
       }
+
+      if (
+        options.userNotificationEventType ===
+          UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
+        incidentEpisode
+      ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
+        logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
+        logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending Telegram message.`;
+        logTimelineItem.userTelegramId = notificationRuleItem.userTelegram.id!;
+
+        const updatedLog: UserOnCallLogTimeline =
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+            data: logTimelineItem,
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+
+        const telegramMessage: TelegramMessage = {
+          to: notificationRuleItem.userTelegram.telegramChatId,
+          body: await this.generateTelegramBodyForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+            incidentEpisode,
+            updatedLog.id!,
+          ),
+          parseMode: "HTML",
+          disableWebPagePreview: true,
+        };
+
+        /*
+         * TelegramService accepts incidentEpisodeId but never writes it onto
+         * the request body, so it is deliberately not passed here.
+         */
+        TelegramService.sendTelegramMessage(telegramMessage, {
+          projectId: incidentEpisode.projectId,
+          userOnCallLogTimelineId: updatedLog.id!,
+          userId: notificationRuleItem.userId!,
+          onCallPolicyId: options.onCallPolicyId,
+          onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId: options.onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId,
+          teamId: options.userBelongsToTeamId,
+          onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId:
+            options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId,
+          onCallScheduleId: options.onCallScheduleId,
+        }).catch(async (err: Error) => {
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.updateOneById({
+            id: updatedLog.id!,
+            data: {
+              status: UserNotificationStatus.Error,
+              statusMessage: err.message || "Error sending Telegram message.",
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+        });
+      }
     }
 
     if (
@@ -1094,6 +1997,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         entityId?: ObjectID;
         entityKind: "alert" | "incident" | "alertEpisode" | "incidentEpisode";
       }): Promise<void> => {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending webhook to ${webhookUrl}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userWebhookId = userWebhookId;
@@ -1284,6 +2188,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         alert
       ) {
         // create an error log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Making a call to ${notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userCallId = notificationRuleItem.userCall.id!;
@@ -1337,6 +2242,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         incident
       ) {
         // send call for incident
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Making a call to ${notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userCallId = notificationRuleItem.userCall.id!;
@@ -1390,6 +2296,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Making a call to ${notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone.toString()}.`;
         logTimelineItem.userCallId = notificationRuleItem.userCall.id!;
@@ -1434,6 +2341,61 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           });
         });
       }
+
+      // send call for incident episode
+      if (
+        options.userNotificationEventType ===
+          UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
+        incidentEpisode
+      ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
+        logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
+        logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Making a call to ${notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone.toString()}.`;
+        logTimelineItem.userCallId = notificationRuleItem.userCall.id!;
+
+        const updatedLog: UserOnCallLogTimeline =
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+            data: logTimelineItem,
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+
+        const callRequest: CallRequest =
+          await this.generateCallTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+            notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone,
+            incidentEpisode,
+            updatedLog.id!,
+          );
+
+        /*
+         * CallService accepts incidentEpisodeId but never writes it onto the
+         * request body, so it is deliberately not passed here.
+         */
+        CallService.makeCall(callRequest, {
+          projectId: incidentEpisode.projectId,
+          customTwilioConfig: projectTwilioConfig,
+          userOnCallLogTimelineId: updatedLog.id!,
+          userId: notificationRuleItem.userId!,
+          onCallPolicyId: options.onCallPolicyId,
+          onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId: options.onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId,
+          teamId: options.userBelongsToTeamId,
+          onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId:
+            options.onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId,
+          onCallScheduleId: options.onCallScheduleId,
+        }).catch(async (err: Error) => {
+          await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.updateOneById({
+            id: updatedLog.id!,
+            data: {
+              status: UserNotificationStatus.Error,
+              statusMessage: err.message || "Error making call.",
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+          });
+        });
+      }
     }
 
     if (
@@ -1464,6 +2426,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         alert
       ) {
         // create a log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending push notification to device.`;
         logTimelineItem.userPushId = notificationRuleItem.userPush.id!;
@@ -1544,6 +2507,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         incident
       ) {
         // create a log.
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending push notification to device.`;
         logTimelineItem.userPushId = notificationRuleItem.userPush.id!;
@@ -1623,6 +2587,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.AlertEpisodeCreated &&
         alertEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending push notification to device.`;
         logTimelineItem.userPushId = notificationRuleItem.userPush.id!;
@@ -1701,6 +2666,7 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           UserNotificationEventType.IncidentEpisodeCreated &&
         incidentEpisode
       ) {
+        deliveryAttempted = true;
         logTimelineItem.status = UserNotificationStatus.Sending;
         logTimelineItem.statusMessage = `Sending push notification to device.`;
         logTimelineItem.userPushId = notificationRuleItem.userPush.id!;
@@ -1788,107 +2754,529 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         },
       });
     }
-  }
 
-  @CaptureSpan()
-  public async generateCallTemplateForAlertCreated(
-    to: Phone,
-    alert: Alert,
-    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
-  ): Promise<CallRequest> {
-    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
-
-    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
+    /*
+     * The fell-through guard.
+     *
+     * Gap F was a whole class of lost pages: a contactable channel, an event
+     * type that no block in that channel branched on, and therefore neither a
+     * send nor an error row — the responder was simply never told, and nothing
+     * anywhere recorded that. Rather than trust that every future event type
+     * gets wired into all seven blocks, make the omission loud.
+     *
+     * The row is built fresh instead of reusing logTimelineItem: that instance
+     * picks up an _id as soon as any block has created a row with it, and a
+     * second create() with it would UPDATE that row rather than insert this one.
+     */
+    if (contactableChannels.length > 0 && !deliveryAttempted) {
+      const statusMessage: string = `No notification template for ${options.userNotificationEventType} on ${contactableChannels.join(", ")}.`;
 
-    const alertIdentifier: string =
-      alert.alertNumber !== undefined
-        ? `Alert number ${alert.alertNumber}, ${alert.title || "Alert"}`
-        : alert.title || "Alert";
+      const fellThroughRow: UserOnCallLogTimeline = this.buildLogTimelineItem(
+        notificationRuleItem,
+        options,
+      );
+      fellThroughRow.status = UserNotificationStatus.Error;
+      fellThroughRow.statusMessage = statusMessage;
 
-    const callRequest: CallRequest = {
-      to: to,
-      data: [
-        {
-          sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
-        },
-        {
-          sayMessage: "A new alert has been created",
-        },
-        {
-          sayMessage: alertIdentifier,
-        },
-        {
-          introMessage: "To acknowledge this alert press 1",
-          numDigits: 1,
-          timeoutInSeconds: 10,
-          noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
-          onInputCallRequest: {
-            "1": {
-              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this alert. Good bye",
-            },
-            default: {
-              sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
-            },
-          },
-          responseUrl: new URL(
-            httpProtocol,
-            host,
-            new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
-              .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
-              .addRoute(
-                "/call/gather-input/" + userOnCallLogTimelineId.toString(),
-              ),
-          ),
+      await UserOnCallLogTimelineService.create({
+        data: fellThroughRow,
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
         },
-      ],
-    };
+      });
 
-    return callRequest;
+      logger.error(
+        `${statusMessage} User on-call log: ${options.userNotificationLogId.toString()}`,
+      );
+    }
+
+    return deliveryAttempted;
   }
 
-  @CaptureSpan()
-  public async generateCallTemplateForIncidentCreated(
-    to: Phone,
-    incident: Incident,
-    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
-  ): Promise<CallRequest> {
-    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+  /*
+   * The channels this rule could actually reach the user on, by display name.
+   *
+   * These are the same gates each channel block opens with, so an empty list
+   * means "this rule can contact nobody" — a rule whose method was
+   * cascade-deleted, say — and a non-empty one means a page was expected to go
+   * out. Webhooks have no verification concept at all (UserWebhook has no
+   * isVerified column), so presence of a URL is the whole gate there.
+   */
+  private getContactableChannelNames(
+    notificationRuleItem: Model,
+  ): Array<string> {
+    const channels: Array<string> = [];
 
-    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.email &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userEmail?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("Email");
+    }
 
-    const incidentIdentifier: string =
-      incident.incidentNumber !== undefined
-        ? `Incident number ${incident.incidentNumberWithPrefix || incident.incidentNumber}, ${incident.title || "Incident"}`
-        : incident.title || "Incident";
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userSms?.phone &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userSms?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("SMS");
+    }
 
-    const callRequest: CallRequest = {
-      to: to,
-      data: [
-        {
-          sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
-        },
-        {
-          sayMessage: "A new incident has been created",
-        },
-        {
-          sayMessage: incidentIdentifier,
-        },
-        {
-          introMessage: "To acknowledge this incident press 1",
-          numDigits: 1,
-          timeoutInSeconds: 10,
-          noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
-          onInputCallRequest: {
-            "1": {
-              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this incident. Good bye",
-            },
-            default: {
-              sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
-            },
-          },
-          responseUrl: new URL(
-            httpProtocol,
-            host,
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.phone &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userWhatsApp?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("WhatsApp");
+    }
+
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userTelegram?.telegramChatId &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userTelegram?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("Telegram");
+    }
+
+    if (notificationRuleItem.userWebhook?.webhookUrl) {
+      channels.push("Webhook");
+    }
+
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userCall?.phone &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userCall?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("Call");
+    }
+
+    if (
+      notificationRuleItem.userPush?.deviceToken &&
+      notificationRuleItem.userPush?.isVerified
+    ) {
+      channels.push("Push");
+    }
+
+    return channels;
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Page a responder who has NO notification rule matching what just fired.
+   *
+   * Zero matching rules is indistinguishable from "never configured" unless the
+   * user said otherwise, so the caller (UserOnCallLogService.onCreateSuccess)
+   * checks for an explicit opt-out row first and only reaches here when the
+   * silence looks accidental. Reaching a human on whatever they have verified
+   * beats honouring a configuration they never made.
+   *
+   * Nothing here observes delivery success: every send below is fire-and-forget
+   * (see deliverNotificationForRule), so `notified` means "a page was handed to
+   * the sender", not "a phone rang".
+   *
+   * The three ways this can end are spelled out in FallbackNotificationOutcome,
+   * and the caller must branch on them rather than on `notified` alone: only
+   * NoUsableNotificationMethod describes a responder who cannot be reached, and
+   * only that one is safe to record as a terminal status.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async executeFallbackNotification(
+    options: ExecuteFallbackNotificationOptions,
+  ): Promise<FallbackNotificationResult> {
+    /*
+     * Claim the log under the reserved fallback key before doing anything, so
+     * two overlapping cron ticks cannot both fall back and double-page the same
+     * responder for one escalation.
+     */
+    const claimed: boolean =
+      await UserOnCallLogService.claimNotificationExecution({
+        userOnCallLogId: options.userOnCallLogId,
+        claimKey: FALLBACK_NOTIFICATION_CLAIM_KEY,
+      });
+
+    if (!claimed) {
+      /*
+       * A concurrent run already fell back for this log; it owns everything
+       * that happens next, including the log's final status. Reported as the
+       * transient outcome rather than as "no usable method", because the
+       * caller's response to the latter is a terminal Error — which would
+       * stamp "this responder is unreachable" over a page that is in flight.
+       */
+      return {
+        outcome: FallbackNotificationOutcome.DeliveryFailed,
+        notified: false,
+        channelsUsed: [],
+      };
+    }
+
+    const fallbackRules: Array<{ channelName: string; rule: Model }> =
+      await this.chooseFallbackChannels(options);
+
+    if (fallbackRules.length === 0) {
+      logger.warn(
+        `On-call fallback found no usable notification method for user ${options.userId.toString()} in project ${options.projectId.toString()} (${options.severityName} ${options.ruleType}). The page cannot be delivered.`,
+      );
+
+      return {
+        outcome: FallbackNotificationOutcome.NoUsableNotificationMethod,
+        notified: false,
+        channelsUsed: [],
+      };
+    }
+
+    const channelsUsed: Array<string> = [];
+    let anAttemptFailed: boolean = false;
+
+    /*
+     * One delivery call per channel, never a loop inside one call: the timeline
+     * row is a single mutable object inside deliverNotificationForRule, and a
+     * second create() with it would UPDATE the row the first channel wrote
+     * instead of inserting a second one — the second page would vanish from the
+     * timeline and, worse, overwrite the first one's status.
+     */
+    for (const fallbackRule of fallbackRules) {
+      try {
+        const dispatched: boolean = await this.deliverNotificationForRule(
+          fallbackRule.rule,
+          options,
+        );
+
+        /*
+         * Only a genuine dispatch earns a place in channelsUsed. The channel
+         * names in here are read back to the operator as "notified via fallback
+         * (Push, Email)", so a name added merely because the call resolved is a
+         * lie in the one place somebody looks to find out whether the responder
+         * was reached — and deliverNotificationForRule resolves perfectly
+         * happily when no block claimed the event type.
+         */
+        if (dispatched) {
+          channelsUsed.push(fallbackRule.channelName);
+        } else {
+          anAttemptFailed = true;
+
+          logger.error(
+            `On-call fallback dispatched nothing on ${fallbackRule.channelName} for user ${options.userId.toString()}: no notification template matched ${options.userNotificationEventType}.`,
+          );
+        }
+      } catch (err) {
+        anAttemptFailed = true;
+
+        logger.error(
+          `On-call fallback failed to deliver on ${fallbackRule.channelName} for user ${options.userId.toString()}.`,
+        );
+        logger.error(err);
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (channelsUsed.length > 0) {
+      return {
+        outcome: FallbackNotificationOutcome.Delivered,
+        notified: true,
+        channelsUsed: channelsUsed,
+      };
+    }
+
+    /*
+     * There were channels to try and not one of them carried a page. That is
+     * emphatically not the "responder has no notification method" case —
+     * chooseFallbackChannels returns only verified, project-enabled methods, so
+     * the responder is reachable and today simply failed to be reached.
+     *
+     * anAttemptFailed is necessarily true on this line, since every path
+     * through the loop that does not push a channel sets it. It is read rather
+     * than assumed so that a future channel that can finish without either
+     * dispatching or failing degrades into the transient outcome instead of
+     * silently telling the operator the responder has nothing configured.
+     */
+    return {
+      outcome: anAttemptFailed
+        ? FallbackNotificationOutcome.DeliveryFailed
+        : FallbackNotificationOutcome.NoUsableNotificationMethod,
+      notified: false,
+      channelsUsed: [],
+    };
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Pick what to page the user on, and build an unsaved rule for each choice.
+   *
+   * Zero-cost channels win: push and email reach the most people for no money
+   * and no billing surprise, and there is no reason to pick between them, so a
+   * user who has both gets both. Only a user with neither is worth spending on,
+   * and then just once, in escalating-intrusiveness order.
+   *
+   * Paid channels are additionally gated on the project's own enable flags.
+   * SmsService and CallService enforce those at send time, but WhatsApp and
+   * Telegram only check them when a method is created — so a project that
+   * switched WhatsApp off would still be billed by a fallback that did not look.
+   */
+  private async chooseFallbackChannels(
+    options: ExecuteFallbackNotificationOptions,
+  ): Promise<Array<{ channelName: string; rule: Model }>> {
+    const chosen: Array<{ channelName: string; rule: Model }> = [];
+
+    const userPush: UserPush | null = await UserPushService.findOneBy({
+      query: {
+        projectId: options.projectId,
+        userId: options.userId,
+        isVerified: true,
+      },
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        deviceToken: true,
+        deviceType: true,
+        isVerified: true,
+      },
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    if (userPush) {
+      const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+      rule.userPush = userPush;
+      rule.userPushId = userPush.id!;
+      chosen.push({ channelName: "Push", rule: rule });
+    }
+
+    const userEmail: UserEmail | null = await UserEmailService.findOneBy({
+      query: {
+        projectId: options.projectId,
+        userId: options.userId,
+        isVerified: true,
+      },
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        email: true,
+        isVerified: true,
+      },
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    if (userEmail) {
+      const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+      rule.userEmail = userEmail;
+      rule.userEmailId = userEmail.id!;
+      chosen.push({ channelName: "Email", rule: rule });
+    }
+
+    if (chosen.length > 0) {
+      return chosen;
+    }
+
+    const project: Project | null = await ProjectService.findOneById({
+      id: options.projectId,
+      select: {
+        enableSmsNotifications: true,
+        enableCallNotifications: true,
+        enableWhatsAppNotifications: true,
+        enableTelegramNotifications: true,
+      },
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    if (project?.enableSmsNotifications) {
+      const userSms: UserSMS | null = await UserSmsService.findOneBy({
+        query: {
+          projectId: options.projectId,
+          userId: options.userId,
+          isVerified: true,
+        },
+        select: {
+          _id: true,
+          phone: true,
+          isVerified: true,
+        },
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
+        },
+      });
+
+      if (userSms) {
+        const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+        rule.userSms = userSms;
+        rule.userSmsId = userSms.id!;
+
+        return [{ channelName: "SMS", rule: rule }];
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (project?.enableCallNotifications) {
+      const userCall: UserCall | null = await UserCallService.findOneBy({
+        query: {
+          projectId: options.projectId,
+          userId: options.userId,
+          isVerified: true,
+        },
+        select: {
+          _id: true,
+          phone: true,
+          isVerified: true,
+        },
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
+        },
+      });
+
+      if (userCall) {
+        const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+        rule.userCall = userCall;
+        rule.userCallId = userCall.id!;
+
+        return [{ channelName: "Call", rule: rule }];
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (project?.enableWhatsAppNotifications) {
+      const userWhatsApp: UserWhatsApp | null =
+        await UserWhatsAppService.findOneBy({
+          query: {
+            projectId: options.projectId,
+            userId: options.userId,
+            isVerified: true,
+          },
+          select: {
+            _id: true,
+            phone: true,
+            isVerified: true,
+          },
+          props: {
+            isRoot: true,
+          },
+        });
+
+      if (userWhatsApp) {
+        const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+        rule.userWhatsApp = userWhatsApp;
+        rule.userWhatsAppId = userWhatsApp.id!;
+
+        return [{ channelName: "WhatsApp", rule: rule }];
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (project?.enableTelegramNotifications) {
+      const userTelegram: UserTelegram | null =
+        await UserTelegramService.findOneBy({
+          query: {
+            projectId: options.projectId,
+            userId: options.userId,
+            isVerified: true,
+          },
+          select: {
+            _id: true,
+            telegramChatId: true,
+            telegramUserHandle: true,
+            isVerified: true,
+          },
+          props: {
+            isRoot: true,
+          },
+        });
+
+      if (userTelegram) {
+        const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+        rule.userTelegram = userTelegram;
+        rule.userTelegramId = userTelegram.id!;
+
+        return [{ channelName: "Telegram", rule: rule }];
+      }
+    }
+
+    /*
+     * A webhook costs the project nothing and has no verification concept at
+     * all (UserWebhook has no isVerified column), so its presence is the whole
+     * test, and there is no project flag to consult.
+     */
+    const userWebhook: UserWebhook | null = await UserWebhookService.findOneBy({
+      query: {
+        projectId: options.projectId,
+        userId: options.userId,
+      },
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        webhookUrl: true,
+        name: true,
+        secret: true,
+      },
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    if (userWebhook) {
+      const rule: Model = this.buildUnsavedFallbackRule(options);
+      rule.userWebhook = userWebhook;
+      rule.userWebhookId = userWebhook.id!;
+
+      return [{ channelName: "Webhook", rule: rule }];
+    }
+
+    return chosen;
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * A UserNotificationRule that exists only for the length of one delivery.
+   *
+   * It is never saved: the user did not ask for this rule, and persisting it
+   * would silently rewrite their configuration behind their back. The method
+   * relation is populated as a loaded entity rather than just its FK because
+   * deliverNotificationForRule reads the relation (userEmail.email,
+   * userEmail.isVerified) and never dereferences the id.
+   */
+  private buildUnsavedFallbackRule(
+    options: ExecuteFallbackNotificationOptions,
+  ): Model {
+    const rule: Model = new Model();
+    rule.projectId = options.projectId;
+    rule.userId = options.userId;
+    rule.ruleType = options.ruleType;
+    rule.notifyAfterMinutes = 0;
+
+    return rule;
+  }
+
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateCallTemplateForAlertCreated(
+    to: Phone,
+    alert: Alert,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<CallRequest> {
+    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+
+    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
+
+    const alertIdentifier: string =
+      alert.alertNumber !== undefined
+        ? `Alert number ${alert.alertNumber}, ${alert.title || "Alert"}`
+        : alert.title || "Alert";
+
+    const callRequest: CallRequest = {
+      to: to,
+      data: [
+        {
+          sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: "A new alert has been created",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: alertIdentifier,
+        },
+        {
+          introMessage: "To acknowledge this alert press 1",
+          numDigits: 1,
+          timeoutInSeconds: 10,
+          noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
+          onInputCallRequest: {
+            "1": {
+              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this alert. Good bye",
+            },
+            default: {
+              sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
+            },
+          },
+          responseUrl: new URL(
+            httpProtocol,
+            host,
             new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
               .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
               .addRoute(
@@ -1903,20 +3291,19 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   }
 
   @CaptureSpan()
-  public async generateCallTemplateForAlertEpisodeCreated(
+  public async generateCallTemplateForIncidentCreated(
     to: Phone,
-    alertEpisode: AlertEpisode,
+    incident: Incident,
     userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
   ): Promise<CallRequest> {
     const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
 
     const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
 
-    const episodeIdentifier: string = alertEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix
-      ? `Alert episode ${alertEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix}, ${alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode"}`
-      : alertEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
-        ? `Alert episode number ${alertEpisode.episodeNumber}, ${alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode"}`
-        : alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode";
+    const incidentIdentifier: string =
+      incident.incidentNumber !== undefined
+        ? `Incident number ${incident.incidentNumberWithPrefix || incident.incidentNumber}, ${incident.title || "Incident"}`
+        : incident.title || "Incident";
 
     const callRequest: CallRequest = {
       to: to,
@@ -1925,19 +3312,19 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
           sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
         },
         {
-          sayMessage: "A new alert episode has been created",
+          sayMessage: "A new incident has been created",
         },
         {
-          sayMessage: episodeIdentifier,
+          sayMessage: incidentIdentifier,
         },
         {
-          introMessage: "To acknowledge this alert episode press 1",
+          introMessage: "To acknowledge this incident press 1",
           numDigits: 1,
           timeoutInSeconds: 10,
           noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
           onInputCallRequest: {
             "1": {
-              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this alert episode. Good bye",
+              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this incident. Good bye",
             },
             default: {
               sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
@@ -1960,17 +3347,132 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   }
 
   @CaptureSpan()
-  public async generateSmsTemplateForAlertCreated(
+  public async generateCallTemplateForAlertEpisodeCreated(
     to: Phone,
-    alert: Alert,
+    alertEpisode: AlertEpisode,
     userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
-  ): Promise<SMS> {
+  ): Promise<CallRequest> {
     const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+
     const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
 
-    const shortUrl: ShortLink = await ShortLinkService.saveShortLinkFor(
-      new URL(
-        httpProtocol,
+    const episodeIdentifier: string = alertEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix
+      ? `Alert episode ${alertEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix}, ${alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode"}`
+      : alertEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
+        ? `Alert episode number ${alertEpisode.episodeNumber}, ${alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode"}`
+        : alertEpisode.title || "Alert Episode";
+
+    const callRequest: CallRequest = {
+      to: to,
+      data: [
+        {
+          sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: "A new alert episode has been created",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: episodeIdentifier,
+        },
+        {
+          introMessage: "To acknowledge this alert episode press 1",
+          numDigits: 1,
+          timeoutInSeconds: 10,
+          noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
+          onInputCallRequest: {
+            "1": {
+              sayMessage: "You have acknowledged this alert episode. Good bye",
+            },
+            default: {
+              sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
+            },
+          },
+          responseUrl: new URL(
+            httpProtocol,
+            host,
+            new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
+              .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
+              .addRoute(
+                "/call/gather-input/" + userOnCallLogTimelineId.toString(),
+              ),
+          ),
+        },
+      ],
+    };
+
+    return callRequest;
+  }
+
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateCallTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+    to: Phone,
+    incidentEpisode: IncidentEpisode,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<CallRequest> {
+    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+
+    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
+
+    const episodeIdentifier: string = incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix
+      ? `Incident episode ${incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix}, ${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"}`
+      : incidentEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
+        ? `Incident episode number ${incidentEpisode.episodeNumber}, ${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"}`
+        : incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode";
+
+    const callRequest: CallRequest = {
+      to: to,
+      data: [
+        {
+          sayMessage: "This is a call from One Uptime",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: "A new incident episode has been created",
+        },
+        {
+          sayMessage: episodeIdentifier,
+        },
+        {
+          introMessage: "To acknowledge this incident episode press 1",
+          numDigits: 1,
+          timeoutInSeconds: 10,
+          noInputMessage: "You have not entered any input. Good bye",
+          onInputCallRequest: {
+            "1": {
+              sayMessage:
+                "You have acknowledged this incident episode. Good bye",
+            },
+            default: {
+              sayMessage: "Invalid input. Good bye",
+            },
+          },
+          responseUrl: new URL(
+            httpProtocol,
+            host,
+            new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
+              .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
+              .addRoute(
+                "/call/gather-input/" + userOnCallLogTimelineId.toString(),
+              ),
+          ),
+        },
+      ],
+    };
+
+    return callRequest;
+  }
+
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateSmsTemplateForAlertCreated(
+    to: Phone,
+    alert: Alert,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<SMS> {
+    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
+
+    const shortUrl: ShortLink = await ShortLinkService.saveShortLinkFor(
+      new URL(
+        httpProtocol,
         host,
         new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
           .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
@@ -2059,6 +3561,30 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
     return sms;
   }
 
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateSmsTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+    to: Phone,
+    incidentEpisode: IncidentEpisode,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<SMS> {
+    const url: URL = await this.buildOnCallAcknowledgeShortUrl(
+      userOnCallLogTimelineId,
+    );
+
+    const episodeIdentifier: string = incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix
+      ? `${incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix} (${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"})`
+      : incidentEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
+        ? `#${incidentEpisode.episodeNumber} (${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"})`
+        : incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode";
+
+    const sms: SMS = {
+      to,
+      message: `This is a message from OneUptime. A new incident episode has been created: ${episodeIdentifier}. To acknowledge this incident episode, please click on the following link ${url.toString()}`,
+    };
+
+    return sms;
+  }
+
   private async buildOnCallAcknowledgeShortUrl(
     userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
   ): Promise<URL> {
@@ -2214,6 +3740,49 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
     return lines.join("\n");
   }
 
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateTelegramBodyForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+    incidentEpisode: IncidentEpisode,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<string> {
+    const ackUrl: URL = await this.buildOnCallAcknowledgeShortUrl(
+      userOnCallLogTimelineId,
+    );
+
+    const episodeIdentifier: string = incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix
+      ? `${incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix} — ${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"}`
+      : incidentEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
+        ? `#${incidentEpisode.episodeNumber} — ${incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode"}`
+        : incidentEpisode.title || "Incident Episode";
+
+    const lines: Array<string> = [
+      "🔥 <b>New incident episode assigned to you</b>",
+      "",
+      `📋 <b>${this.escapeTelegramHtml(episodeIdentifier)}</b>`,
+      "",
+      "👤 You're getting this because you're on call.",
+    ];
+
+    if (incidentEpisode.projectId && incidentEpisode.id) {
+      const dashboardUrl: URL =
+        await IncidentEpisodeService.getEpisodeLinkInDashboard(
+          incidentEpisode.projectId,
+          incidentEpisode.id,
+        );
+      lines.push(
+        "",
+        `🔎 <a href="${this.escapeTelegramHtml(dashboardUrl.toString())}">View incident episode in OneUptime</a>`,
+      );
+    }
+
+    lines.push(
+      "",
+      `✅ <a href="${this.escapeTelegramHtml(ackUrl.toString())}">Tap to acknowledge</a>`,
+    );
+
+    return lines.join("\n");
+  }
+
   @CaptureSpan()
   public async generateWhatsAppTemplateForAlertCreated(
     to: Phone,
@@ -2388,6 +3957,51 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
     };
   }
 
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async generateWhatsAppTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+    to: Phone,
+    incidentEpisode: IncidentEpisode,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<WhatsAppMessage> {
+    const acknowledgeUrl: URL = await this.buildOnCallAcknowledgeShortUrl(
+      userOnCallLogTimelineId,
+    );
+
+    const episodeLinkOnDashboard: string =
+      incidentEpisode.projectId && incidentEpisode.id
+        ? (
+            await IncidentEpisodeService.getEpisodeLinkInDashboard(
+              incidentEpisode.projectId,
+              incidentEpisode.id,
+            )
+          ).toString()
+        : acknowledgeUrl.toString();
+
+    const templateKey: WhatsAppTemplateId =
+      WhatsAppTemplateIds.IncidentEpisodeCreated;
+    const templateVariables: Record<string, string> = {
+      project_name: incidentEpisode.project?.name || "OneUptime",
+      episode_title: incidentEpisode.title || "",
+      acknowledge_url: acknowledgeUrl.toString(),
+      episode_number:
+        incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix ||
+        (incidentEpisode.episodeNumber !== undefined
+          ? incidentEpisode.episodeNumber.toString()
+          : ""),
+      episode_link: episodeLinkOnDashboard,
+    };
+
+    const body: string = renderWhatsAppTemplate(templateKey, templateVariables);
+
+    return {
+      to,
+      body,
+      templateKey,
+      templateVariables,
+      templateLanguageCode: WhatsAppTemplateLanguage[templateKey],
+    };
+  }
+
   @CaptureSpan()
   public async generateEmailTemplateForAlertCreated(
     to: Email,
@@ -2648,45 +4262,225 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   }
 
   @CaptureSpan()
-  public async startUserNotificationRulesExecution(
-    userId: ObjectID,
-    options: {
-      projectId: ObjectID;
-      triggeredByIncidentId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByAlertId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByAlertEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      userNotificationEventType: UserNotificationEventType;
-      onCallPolicyExecutionLogId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallPolicyId: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      userBelongsToTeamId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      onCallScheduleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-      overridedByUserId?: ObjectID | undefined;
-    },
-  ): Promise<void> {
-    // add user notification log.
-    const userOnCallLog: UserOnCallLog = new UserOnCallLog();
+  public async generateEmailTemplateForIncidentEpisodeCreated(
+    to: Email,
+    incidentEpisode: IncidentEpisode,
+    userOnCallLogTimelineId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<EmailMessage> {
+    const host: Hostname = await DatabaseConfig.getHost();
+    const httpProtocol: Protocol = await DatabaseConfig.getHttpProtocol();
 
-    userOnCallLog.userId = userId;
-    userOnCallLog.projectId = options.projectId;
+    // Fetch incidents that are members of this episode
+    const episodeMembers: Array<IncidentEpisodeMember> =
+      await IncidentEpisodeMemberService.findBy({
+        query: {
+          incidentEpisodeId: incidentEpisode.id!,
+        },
+        select: {
+          incidentId: true,
+        },
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
+        },
+        limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
+        skip: 0,
+      });
 
-    if (options.triggeredByIncidentId) {
-      userOnCallLog.triggeredByIncidentId = options.triggeredByIncidentId;
-    }
+    // Get the incident IDs
+    const incidentIds: Array<ObjectID> = episodeMembers
+      .map((member: IncidentEpisodeMember) => {
+        return member.incidentId;
+      })
+      .filter((id: ObjectID | undefined): id is ObjectID => {
+        return id !== undefined;
+      });
 
-    if (options.triggeredByAlertId) {
-      userOnCallLog.triggeredByAlertId = options.triggeredByAlertId;
-    }
+    // Fetch full incident data with monitors
+    const incidents: Array<Incident> =
+      incidentIds.length > 0
+        ? await IncidentService.findBy({
+            query: {
+              _id: QueryHelper.any(incidentIds),
+            },
+            select: {
+              _id: true,
+              title: true,
+              incidentNumber: true,
+              incidentNumberWithPrefix: true,
+              monitors: {
+                _id: true,
+                name: true,
+              },
+            },
+            props: {
+              isRoot: true,
+            },
+            limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
+            skip: 0,
+          })
+        : [];
 
-    if (options.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId) {
-      userOnCallLog.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId =
-        options.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId;
+    /*
+     * Unique monitors across every incident in the episode. An incident carries
+     * a list of monitors (unlike an alert, which has exactly one), so this
+     * flattens rather than reading a single relation.
+     */
+    const monitorNames: Set<string> = new Set();
+    for (const incident of incidents) {
+      for (const monitor of incident.monitors || []) {
+        if (monitor.name) {
+          monitorNames.add(monitor.name);
+        }
+      }
     }
 
-    if (options.triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId) {
-      userOnCallLog.triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId =
+    const resourcesAffected: string =
+      monitorNames.size > 0
+        ? Array.from(monitorNames).join(", ")
+        : "No resources identified";
+
+    // Build incidents list HTML with proper email styling
+    let incidentsListHtml: string = "";
+    if (incidents.length > 0) {
+      const incidentRows: string[] = [];
+      for (const incident of incidents) {
+        const incidentTitle: string = incident.title || "Untitled Incident";
+        const incidentNumber: string =
+          incident.incidentNumberWithPrefix ||
+          (incident.incidentNumber ? `#${incident.incidentNumber}` : "");
+        const incidentLink: string = (
+          await IncidentService.getIncidentLinkInDashboard(
+            incidentEpisode.projectId!,
+            incident.id!,
+          )
+        ).toString();
+        const monitorName: string =
+          (incident.monitors || [])
+            .map((monitor: Monitor): string => {
+              return monitor.name || "";
+            })
+            .filter((name: string): boolean => {
+              return name.length > 0;
+            })
+            .join(", ") || "";
+
+        incidentRows.push(`
+            <tr>
+              <td style="padding: 12px 16px; border-bottom: 1px solid #e2e8f0;">
+                <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
+                  <tr>
+                    <td style="vertical-align: middle;">
+                      <span style="display: inline-block; background-color: #fee2e2; color: #991b1b; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 600; padding: 2px 8px; border-radius: 4px; margin-right: 8px;">${incidentNumber}</span>
+                      <a href="${incidentLink}" style="color: #2563eb; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 500; text-decoration: none;">${incidentTitle}</a>
+                      ${monitorName ? `<span style="display: block; color: #64748b; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 4px;">Monitor: ${monitorName}</span>` : ""}
+                    </td>
+                    <td style="text-align: right; vertical-align: middle;">
+                      <a href="${incidentLink}" style="color: #2563eb; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none;">View →</a>
+                    </td>
+                  </tr>
+                </table>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+          `);
+      }
+      if (incidentRows.length > 0) {
+        incidentsListHtml = `
+          <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="background: linear-gradient(135deg, #f8fafc 0%, #f1f5f9 100%); border-radius: 8px; border: 1px solid #e2e8f0; margin: 8px 0 16px 0;">
+            <tbody>
+              ${incidentRows.join("")}
+            </tbody>
+          </table>
+        `;
+      }
+    }
+
+    const episodeNumber: string =
+      incidentEpisode.episodeNumberWithPrefix ||
+      (incidentEpisode.episodeNumber
+        ? `#${incidentEpisode.episodeNumber}`
+        : "");
+
+    const vars: Dictionary<string> = {
+      incidentEpisodeTitle: incidentEpisode.title!,
+      episodeNumber: episodeNumber,
+      projectName: incidentEpisode.project!.name!,
+      currentState: incidentEpisode.currentIncidentState!.name!,
+      incidentEpisodeDescription: await Markdown.convertToHTML(
+        incidentEpisode.description! || "",
+        MarkdownContentType.Email,
+      ),
+      incidentEpisodeSeverity: incidentEpisode.incidentSeverity!.name!,
+      resourcesAffected: resourcesAffected,
+      rootCause:
+        incidentEpisode.rootCause ||
+        "No root cause identified for this incident episode",
+      incidentsList: incidentsListHtml,
+      incidentsCount: incidents.length.toString(),
+      incidentEpisodeViewLink: (
+        await IncidentEpisodeService.getEpisodeLinkInDashboard(
+          incidentEpisode.projectId!,
+          incidentEpisode.id!,
+        )
+      ).toString(),
+      acknowledgeIncidentEpisodeLink: new URL(
+        httpProtocol,
+        host,
+        new Route(AppApiRoute.toString())
+          .addRoute(new UserOnCallLogTimeline().crudApiPath!)
+          .addRoute("/acknowledge-page/" + userOnCallLogTimelineId.toString()),
+      ).toString(),
+    };
+
+    const emailMessage: EmailMessage = {
+      toEmail: to!,
+      templateType: EmailTemplateType.AcknowledgeIncidentEpisode,
+      vars: vars,
+      subject: `ACTION REQUIRED: Incident Episode ${episodeNumber} created - ${incidentEpisode.title!}`,
+    };
+
+    return emailMessage;
+  }
+
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async startUserNotificationRulesExecution(
+    userId: ObjectID,
+    options: {
+      projectId: ObjectID;
+      triggeredByIncidentId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      triggeredByAlertId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      triggeredByAlertEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      userNotificationEventType: UserNotificationEventType;
+      onCallPolicyExecutionLogId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      onCallPolicyId: ObjectID | undefined;
+      onCallPolicyEscalationRuleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      userBelongsToTeamId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      onCallDutyPolicyExecutionLogTimelineId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      onCallScheduleId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      overridedByUserId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+    },
+  ): Promise<void> {
+    // add user notification log.
+    const userOnCallLog: UserOnCallLog = new UserOnCallLog();
+
+    userOnCallLog.userId = userId;
+    userOnCallLog.projectId = options.projectId;
+
+    if (options.triggeredByIncidentId) {
+      userOnCallLog.triggeredByIncidentId = options.triggeredByIncidentId;
+    }
+
+    if (options.triggeredByAlertId) {
+      userOnCallLog.triggeredByAlertId = options.triggeredByAlertId;
+    }
+
+    if (options.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId) {
+      userOnCallLog.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId =
+        options.triggeredByAlertEpisodeId;
+    }
+
+    if (options.triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId) {
+      userOnCallLog.triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId =
         options.triggeredByIncidentEpisodeId;
     }
 
@@ -2814,26 +4608,59 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
   protected override async onBeforeCreate(
     createBy: CreateBy<Model>,
   ): Promise<OnCreate<Model>> {
-    if (
-      !createBy.data.userCallId &&
-      !createBy.data.userCall &&
-      !createBy.data.userEmail &&
-      !createBy.data.userSms &&
-      !createBy.data.userSmsId &&
-      !createBy.data.userWhatsApp &&
-      !createBy.data.userWhatsAppId &&
-      !createBy.data.userTelegram &&
-      !createBy.data.userTelegramId &&
-      !createBy.data.userWebhook &&
-      !createBy.data.userWebhookId &&
-      !createBy.data.userEmailId &&
-      !createBy.data.userPushId &&
-      !createBy.data.userPush
-    ) {
-      throw new BadDataException(
-        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
-      );
-    }
+    const carrier: RuleColumnCarrier =
+      createBy.data as unknown as RuleColumnCarrier;
+
+    /*
+     * THE OWNERSHIP COLUMN IS REDUCED TO ONE SPELLING BEFORE ANYTHING READS IT,
+     * and it has to happen here, first, rather than inside the guard below.
+     *
+     * `userId` and `user` are two decorated members over one join column. Every
+     * check from this line down — the roster check, the method-ownership check,
+     * the create invariants, CreatePermission's own ownership gate, and the
+     * audit line after the write — asks "who does this row belong to", and each
+     * of them would otherwise have to answer it from two disagreeing sources.
+     * A payload carrying `user: { _id: <somebody else> }` and no `userId` is
+     * the concrete failure: the guard reads the scalar, finds nothing, falls
+     * back to the actor and validates a self-write, while TypeORM writes the
+     * relation's id and the row belongs to somebody else entirely.
+     *
+     * So: refuse a payload whose two spellings disagree, then fold the survivor
+     * into the scalar. After these two lines `createBy.data.userId` is the
+     * single, authoritative owner, and it is the value that will be persisted.
+     *
+     * Deliberately NOT behind the root short-circuit that guards the checks
+     * below. This is a reduction of the payload rather than a permission
+     * decision, and an internal caller writing an ambiguous row would be just
+     * as ambiguous a row.
+     */
+    UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertOneRuleOwner(carrier);
+    UserNotificationRuleAdminService.collapseRuleOwnerRelationOnCreate(carrier);
+
+    await this.assertWriteIsPermittedForRuleOwner(createBy);
+
+    /*
+     * Ambiguity is refused, then removed — in that order, and only after the
+     * ownership guard above has had its say. A payload that names two different
+     * methods for one channel is a payload nobody legitimately sends, and one
+     * that names the same method twice is folded down to a single spelling so
+     * that the invariants below, and the ORM after them, are reading the one
+     * value that will actually be written.
+     */
+    UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertOneMethodPerNotificationChannel(
+      carrier,
+    );
+    UserNotificationRuleAdminService.collapseNotificationMethodRelationsOnCreate(
+      carrier,
+    );
+
+    const hasNotificationMethod: boolean =
+      UserNotificationRuleAdminService.carriesAnyNotificationMethod(carrier);
+
+    this.assertRuleIsCoherent({
+      isOptOut: Boolean(createBy.data.isOptOut),
+      hasNotificationMethod: hasNotificationMethod,
+    });
 
     return {
       createBy,
@@ -2841,157 +4668,813 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
     };
   }
 
-  @CaptureSpan()
-  public async addDefaultNotificationRulesForVerifiedMethod(data: {
-    projectId: ObjectID;
-    userId: ObjectID;
-    notificationMethod: NotificationMethodDescriptor;
-  }): Promise<void> {
-    const { projectId, userId, notificationMethod } = data;
+  /**
+   * The two invariants that decide whether a rule row means anything, enforced
+   * from one place because create and update can each break both of them.
+   *
+   * An opt-out row is how a user says "deliberately do not page me for this rule
+   * type at this severity". It carries the rule type and the severity and
+   * nothing else — a method on it would be self-contradictory (reach me here;
+   * also never reach me), and its whole purpose is to make silence explicit so
+   * that every OTHER zero-rule case can be treated as misconfiguration and
+   * rescued by the fallback. A rule that is NOT opt-out and names no method is
+   * the mirror failure: it looks like coverage on every screen and delivers
+   * nothing.
+   *
+   * The wording of both messages is load-bearing — the dashboard and the API
+   * docs quote them — so they are written once here rather than once per path.
+   */
+  private assertRuleIsCoherent(data: {
+    isOptOut: boolean;
+    hasNotificationMethod: boolean;
+  }): void {
+    if (data.isOptOut && data.hasNotificationMethod) {
+      throw new BadDataException(
+        "An opt-out notification rule cannot have a notification method. Remove the notification method, or turn off opt-out.",
+      );
+    }
 
-    await this.createIncidentOnCallRules(projectId, userId, notificationMethod);
-    await this.createAlertOnCallRules(projectId, userId, notificationMethod);
-    await this.createSingleRule(
-      projectId,
-      userId,
-      notificationMethod,
-      NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT_EPISODE,
-    );
-    await this.createSingleRule(
-      projectId,
-      userId,
-      notificationMethod,
-      NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT_EPISODE,
-    );
-    await this.createSingleRule(
-      projectId,
-      userId,
-      notificationMethod,
-      NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_ON_CALL,
-    );
-    await this.createSingleRule(
-      projectId,
-      userId,
-      notificationMethod,
-      NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_OFF_CALL,
-    );
+    if (!data.isOptOut && !data.hasNotificationMethod) {
+      throw new BadDataException(
+        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
+      );
+    }
   }
 
-  private applyNotificationMethod(
-    rule: Model,
-    descriptor: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
-  ): void {
-    if (descriptor.userEmailId) {
-      rule.userEmailId = descriptor.userEmailId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userSmsId) {
-      rule.userSmsId = descriptor.userSmsId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userCallId) {
-      rule.userCallId = descriptor.userCallId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userWhatsAppId) {
-      rule.userWhatsAppId = descriptor.userWhatsAppId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userTelegramId) {
-      rule.userTelegramId = descriptor.userTelegramId;
+  /**
+   * The create-path half of the on-behalf-of guards (audit R1 and R3).
+   *
+   * CreatePermission.checkCreateOwnership decides WHETHER a caller may name
+   * somebody else in the ownership column: CurrentUser-only callers may not, a
+   * caller holding a real role permission in the model's create list may. That
+   * check is deliberately permission-shaped and value-blind past that point —
+   * it has no notion of a project roster and no notion of what the rest of the
+   * row says. Both of those are checked here, because both of them are how the
+   * widened permission turns into somebody else's pages.
+   *
+   * Root and master-admin writes are exempt, matching the short-circuit at the
+   * top of CreatePermission. Every internal seeder (default rules on method
+   * verification, invitation acceptance, migrations) builds the ownership
+   * column and the method reference from one and the same userId, so the guard
+   * could only ever cost them a query per row; and the delivery-time check in
+   * executeNotificationRuleItem is the backstop that keeps even an internally
+   * written bad row from being acted on.
+   */
+  private async assertWriteIsPermittedForRuleOwner(
+    createBy: CreateBy<Model>,
+  ): Promise<void> {
+    if (createBy.props.isRoot || createBy.props.isMasterAdmin) {
+      return;
     }
-    if (descriptor.userWebhookId) {
-      rule.userWebhookId = descriptor.userWebhookId;
+
+    /*
+     * `createBy.data.userId` alone is enough HERE, and only because
+     * onBeforeCreate has already folded the `user` relation into it. Read on
+     * its own — before that reduction existed — this line was a bypass: a
+     * payload spelling the owner as `user: { _id: <somebody else> }` left the
+     * scalar empty, fell through to props.userId, and every check below was
+     * answered about the actor while the row was written for the victim. If
+     * that fold is ever moved or removed, this line becomes wrong again.
+     *
+     * The fallback to props.userId is a different thing and stays: an omitted
+     * ownership column means "for myself". CreatePermission stamps props.userId
+     * onto it, but it does so AFTER this hook has run, so the value is not on
+     * the model yet and reading data.userId alone would treat every ordinary
+     * self-service create as an unowned row.
+     */
+    const ruleOwnerUserId: ObjectID | undefined =
+      createBy.data.userId || createBy.props.userId;
+
+    if (!ruleOwnerUserId) {
+      throw new BadDataException(
+        "A notification rule must belong to a user. Sign in as the user this rule is for, or name the user the rule belongs to.",
+      );
     }
-    if (descriptor.userPushId) {
-      rule.userPushId = descriptor.userPushId;
+
+    const actorUserId: ObjectID | undefined = createBy.props.userId;
+
+    const isWritingForSomebodyElse: boolean =
+      !actorUserId || actorUserId.toString() !== ruleOwnerUserId.toString();
+
+    if (isWritingForSomebodyElse) {
+      /*
+       * R1. Holding an administrative permission is a claim about a PROJECT, so
+       * it can only ever authorise writing for users of that project. Without
+       * this, one throwaway project where the caller is an admin would license
+       * writing notification rules for any user id in the installation.
+       */
+      await UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertTargetUserIsProjectMember({
+        targetUserId: ruleOwnerUserId,
+        props: createBy.props,
+      });
     }
+
+    /*
+     * R3, and note that it runs for a self-write too. "userId is me, but the
+     * email row I am pointing at is yours" is the mirror image of the hijack —
+     * it does not steal my pages, it copies them to your inbox — and it was
+     * writable long before this phase widened anything.
+     */
+    const references: Array<NotificationMethodReference> =
+      UserNotificationRuleAdminService.collectNotificationMethodReferences(
+        createBy.data as unknown as RuleColumnCarrier,
+      );
+
+    await UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertNotificationMethodsBelongToUser(
+      {
+        ownerUserId: ruleOwnerUserId,
+        references: references,
+      },
+    );
   }
 
-  private getNotificationMethodQuery(
-    descriptor: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
-  ): Record<string, ObjectID> {
-    const query: Record<string, ObjectID> = {};
-    if (descriptor.userEmailId) {
-      query["userEmailId"] = descriptor.userEmailId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userSmsId) {
-      query["userSmsId"] = descriptor.userSmsId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userCallId) {
-      query["userCallId"] = descriptor.userCallId;
-    }
-    if (descriptor.userWhatsAppId) {
-      query["userWhatsAppId"] = descriptor.userWhatsAppId;
+  /*
+   * R6 for the create path.
+   *
+   * Keyed on the actor the SERVER resolved (props.userId) against the userId
+   * the row was actually PERSISTED with — read off createdItem, after
+   * CreatePermission has had its say and after the insert. Nothing in the
+   * request body reaches this comparison, because the body is the thing being
+   * audited.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  protected override async onCreateSuccess(
+    onCreate: OnCreate<Model>,
+    createdItem: Model,
+  ): Promise<Model> {
+    const actorUserId: ObjectID | undefined = onCreate.createBy.props.userId;
+    const ruleOwnerUserId: ObjectID | undefined = createdItem.userId;
+
+    if (
+      actorUserId &&
+      ruleOwnerUserId &&
+      actorUserId.toString() !== ruleOwnerUserId.toString()
+    ) {
+      await UserNotificationRuleAdminService.recordAdminRuleChange({
+        action: AuditLogAction.Create,
+        actorUserId: actorUserId,
+        ownerUserId: ruleOwnerUserId,
+        projectId: createdItem.projectId || onCreate.createBy.props.tenantId,
+        ruleId: createdItem.id,
+        after: createdItem,
+        notifyOwner: true,
+        props: onCreate.createBy.props,
+      });
     }
-    if (descriptor.userTelegramId) {
-      query["userTelegramId"] = descriptor.userTelegramId;
+
+    return createdItem;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Narrow a caller-supplied query to the rows that caller is actually entitled
+   * to write, for use by the write hooks.
+   *
+   * WHY THIS EXISTS AT ALL. DatabaseService runs the hooks BEFORE the permission
+   * layer: _updateBy calls onBeforeUpdate and only then
+   * ModelPermission.checkUpdateQueryPermissions; _deleteBy calls onBeforeDelete
+   * and only then checkDeleteQueryPermission. So a hook that reads
+   * `updateBy.query` is reading the RAW request — no tenant predicate, no
+   * ownership predicate — and the hooks below read it with `isRoot` props on
+   * top, because the question they ask is a question about the database's state
+   * rather than about the caller's visibility. Left there, a caller could point
+   * the guard at rows in another project entirely: the guard would validate
+   * against them, the audit trail would name their owners, and the write itself
+   * would touch a completely different set.
+   *
+   * WHY NOT JUST CALL ModelPermission. That is the obvious fix and it is the
+   * wrong one. checkUpdateQueryPermissions does two jobs — it narrows the query
+   * AND it authorises the request — and running it here would run the second
+   * job twice, moving every table- and column-level rejection into the hook and
+   * duplicating the team lookups behind the tenant scope on every write. The
+   * hook does not need to authorise anything; _updateBy authorises it a few
+   * lines later and is the authority. What the hook needs is only that the row
+   * set it reasons about is no wider than the row set the write can reach.
+   *
+   * WHAT IS REPRODUCED, AND WHY THAT IS THE WHOLE OF IT. For this model the
+   * narrowing is exactly two predicates: the tenant column
+   * (TenantPermission.addTenantScopeToQuery for a member,
+   * PermissionUtil.addTenantScopeToQueryAsRoot on the delete path for root) and,
+   * when Permission.CurrentUser is the ONLY thing letting the caller through,
+   * the ownership column. Nothing else applies: UserNotificationRule declares no
+   * access-control column, is not an operational resource and has no
+   * @OwnedThrough, so addAccessControlIdsToQuery and addOwnedScopeToQuery are
+   * both no-ops on it. IF ANY OF THAT CHANGES ON THE MODEL, THIS MUST CHANGE
+   * WITH IT — a narrowing the permission layer applies and this does not is a
+   * guard validating rows the write never touches.
+   *
+   * Root and master-admin queries are returned untouched. They are entitled to
+   * every row, and narrowing them would make the guard read FEWER rows than the
+   * write reaches, which is the one direction it must never be wrong in.
+   */
+  private narrowQueryToCallerEntitlement(
+    query: Query<Model>,
+    props: DatabaseCommonInteractionProps,
+    requestType: DatabaseRequestType,
+  ): Query<Model> {
+    if (props.isRoot || props.isMasterAdmin) {
+      return query;
     }
-    if (descriptor.userWebhookId) {
-      query["userWebhookId"] = descriptor.userWebhookId;
+
+    const scopedQuery: Query<Model> = { ...query };
+
+    const tenantColumn: string | null = this.getModel().getTenantColumn();
+
+    if (tenantColumn && props.tenantId && !props.isMultiTenantRequest) {
+      (scopedQuery as Dictionary<unknown>)[tenantColumn] = props.tenantId;
     }
-    if (descriptor.userPushId) {
-      query["userPushId"] = descriptor.userPushId;
+
+    const userColumn: string | null = this.getModel().getUserColumn();
+
+    if (
+      userColumn &&
+      props.userId &&
+      TenantPermission.isAccessGrantedOnlyByCurrentUser(
+        this.modelType,
+        props,
+        requestType,
+      )
+    ) {
+      /*
+       * Set rather than merged. A CurrentUser-only caller whose query names
+       * somebody else is rejected outright by addCurrentUserScopeToQuery a
+       * moment from now, so the only thing that matters here is that the guard
+       * never reads rows that rejection would have protected.
+       */
+      (scopedQuery as Dictionary<unknown>)[userColumn] = props.userId;
     }
-    return query;
+
+    return scopedQuery;
   }
 
-  private async createIncidentOnCallRules(
-    projectId: ObjectID,
-    userId: ObjectID,
-    notificationMethod: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
-  ): Promise<void> {
-    const incidentSeverities: Array<IncidentSeverity> =
-      await IncidentSeverityService.findBy({
-        query: {
-          projectId,
-        },
-        props: {
-          isRoot: true,
-        },
-        limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
-        skip: 0,
-        select: {
-          _id: true,
-        },
-      });
+  /**
+   * The update-path half of R3, plus the read that R6 needs.
+   *
+   * The rule's owner is re-read FROM THE DATABASE here and never taken from
+   * updateBy.data. That is the whole point of the hook: on update the caller
+   * controls the body, so a userId in it is a claim ("this row is mine") made
+   * by exactly the party the guard exists to doubt. The persisted value is the
+   * only one that decides whose pages the row selects, so it is the only one
+   * worth comparing a method's owner against.
+   *
+   * The lookup runs with isRoot rather than the caller's own props on purpose.
+   * Scoping it to what the CALLER can READ would let a caller who cannot see a
+   * row edit it unchecked — the query would simply return nothing and the loop
+   * below would have nothing to reject. Read permission and write permission are
+   * different lists, and it is the write one that decides what this hook has to
+   * answer for.
+   *
+   * The QUERY, on the other hand, is narrowed first. Root props remove the
+   * caller's visibility from the answer; they must not also remove the caller's
+   * ENTITLEMENT from it, and this hook runs before ModelPermission has applied
+   * either. See narrowQueryToCallerEntitlement for why the narrowing is
+   * reproduced here rather than delegated.
+   *
+   * The rows are carried forward so onUpdateSuccess can audit against the
+   * owner as it stood BEFORE the write, without a second read and without
+   * trusting anything the request said.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  protected override async onBeforeUpdate(
+    updateBy: UpdateBy<Model>,
+  ): Promise<OnUpdate<Model>> {
+    const patch: RuleColumnCarrier =
+      updateBy.data as unknown as RuleColumnCarrier;
+
+    const references: Array<NotificationMethodReference> =
+      UserNotificationRuleAdminService.collectNotificationMethodReferences(
+        patch,
+      );
 
-    for (const incidentSeverity of incidentSeverities) {
-      const existingRule: Model | null = await this.findOneBy({
-        query: {
-          projectId,
-          userId,
-          ...this.getNotificationMethodQuery(notificationMethod),
-          incidentSeverityId: incidentSeverity.id!,
-          ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT,
-        } as any,
-        props: {
-          isRoot: true,
-        },
-      });
+    const isInternalWrite: boolean = Boolean(
+      updateBy.props.isRoot || updateBy.props.isMasterAdmin,
+    );
 
-      if (existingRule) {
+    /*
+     * Three reasons to read the affected rows, and only one of them is R3. An
+     * actor id means this write might be somebody editing somebody else's
+     * configuration, which R6 has to be able to report on even when no method FK
+     * is being touched; and a patch that touches `isOptOut` or any method column
+     * can break a row-level invariant that is only visible once the patch is
+     * laid over the row it is being applied to.
+     */
+    const touchesRuleCoherence: boolean =
+      patch["isOptOut"] !== undefined ||
+      UserNotificationRuleAdminService.mentionsAnyNotificationMethodColumn(
+        patch,
+      );
+
+    const needsAffectedRules: boolean =
+      (references.length > 0 && !isInternalWrite) ||
+      touchesRuleCoherence ||
+      Boolean(updateBy.props.userId);
+
+    if (!needsAffectedRules) {
+      return {
+        updateBy,
+        carryForward: null,
+      };
+    }
+
+    const affectedRules: Array<Model> = await this.findBy({
+      query: this.narrowQueryToCallerEntitlement(
+        updateBy.query,
+        updateBy.props,
+        DatabaseRequestType.Update,
+      ),
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        userId: true,
+        projectId: true,
+        ruleType: true,
+        notifyAfterMinutes: true,
+        isOptOut: true,
+        incidentSeverityId: true,
+        alertSeverityId: true,
+        userEmailId: true,
+        userSmsId: true,
+        userCallId: true,
+        userWhatsAppId: true,
+        userTelegramId: true,
+        userPushId: true,
+        userWebhookId: true,
+      },
+      limit: LIMIT_MAX,
+      skip: 0,
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+        ignoreHooks: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    if (references.length > 0 && !isInternalWrite) {
+      /*
+       * One validation per DISTINCT owner rather than per row. A bulk update
+       * across twenty of one user's rules asks the same question twenty times,
+       * and each question costs a lookup per referenced method.
+       */
+      const validatedOwnerIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>();
+
+      for (const affectedRule of affectedRules) {
+        const ownerKey: string = affectedRule.userId?.toString() || "";
+
+        if (validatedOwnerIds.has(ownerKey)) {
+          continue;
+        }
+
+        validatedOwnerIds.add(ownerKey);
+
+        await UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertNotificationMethodsBelongToUser(
+          {
+            ownerUserId: affectedRule.userId,
+            references: references,
+          },
+        );
+      }
+    }
+
+    /*
+     * Ambiguity is refused here as it is on create, but NOT folded away. The
+     * relation members are `update: []` on this model while the `*Id` members
+     * are open to an administrator, so rewriting one spelling into the other
+     * would smuggle a column write past the very ColumnPermission check that
+     * runs immediately after this hook. Refusal leaves nothing for the ORM to
+     * choose between without moving a value across a permission boundary.
+     */
+    UserNotificationRuleAdminService.assertOneMethodPerNotificationChannel(
+      patch,
+    );
+
+    if (touchesRuleCoherence) {
+      /*
+       * The create-time invariants, re-checked per affected row.
+       *
+       * They were enforced only on create, which left update as a way to reach
+       * the states create refuses: flip `isOptOut` on a rule that carries an
+       * email and you have a row that says both "reach me here" and "never
+       * reach me"; null the last method on a rule that is not opt-out and you
+       * have a row that looks like coverage on every screen and delivers
+       * nothing — indistinguishable, to the fallback, from a deliberate choice
+       * to stay silent. Neither is visible from the patch alone, which is why
+       * this waits until the affected rows have been read.
+       */
+      for (const affectedRule of affectedRules) {
+        const methodIdsAfterPatch: Array<ObjectID> =
+          UserNotificationRuleAdminService.getNotificationMethodIdsAfterPatch({
+            patch: patch,
+            currentRow: affectedRule as unknown as RuleColumnCarrier,
+          });
+
+        const isOptOutAfterPatch: boolean =
+          patch["isOptOut"] !== undefined
+            ? Boolean(patch["isOptOut"])
+            : Boolean(affectedRule.isOptOut);
+
+        this.assertRuleIsCoherent({
+          isOptOut: isOptOutAfterPatch,
+          hasNotificationMethod: methodIdsAfterPatch.length > 0,
+        });
+      }
+    }
+
+    return {
+      updateBy,
+      carryForward: {
+        affectedRules: affectedRules,
+      },
+    };
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * R6 for the update path.
+   *
+   * Every row whose PERSISTED owner is somebody other than the actor gets an
+   * audit entry; the owner gets at most one mail no matter how many of their
+   * rules one request touched, because twenty copies of "an admin changed your
+   * rules" is a message people learn to delete rather than read.
+   *
+   * `updatedItemIds` is the set of rows the write ACTUALLY touched, and the
+   * carried-forward rows are filtered down to it. The two can differ: the hook
+   * read every row the (narrowed) query matched, while _updateBy applies the
+   * caller's own skip/limit and drops rows that were hard-deleted between the
+   * two. Reporting an unchanged row would put a change in the audit trail that
+   * never happened and mail somebody about it.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  protected override async onUpdateSuccess(
+    onUpdate: OnUpdate<Model>,
+    updatedItemIds: Array<ObjectID>,
+  ): Promise<OnUpdate<Model>> {
+    const actorUserId: ObjectID | undefined = onUpdate.updateBy.props.userId;
+
+    if (!actorUserId) {
+      return onUpdate;
+    }
+
+    const affectedRules: Array<Model> =
+      (onUpdate.carryForward?.affectedRules as Array<Model> | undefined) || [];
+
+    const updatedIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>(
+      updatedItemIds.map((id: ObjectID): string => {
+        return id.toString();
+      }),
+    );
+
+    await this.reportAdministrativeChange({
+      action: AuditLogAction.Update,
+      actorUserId: actorUserId,
+      rules: affectedRules.filter((rule: Model): boolean => {
+        return Boolean(rule.id && updatedIds.has(rule.id.toString()));
+      }),
+      updatedFields: onUpdate.updateBy.data as unknown as JSONObject,
+      props: onUpdate.updateBy.props,
+    });
+
+    return onUpdate;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * R6, factored out because create, update and delete all owe the same debt.
+   *
+   * One audit entry per ROW, because that is what an investigator reconstructs
+   * a timeline from, and at most one mail per PERSON, because one request that
+   * touches twenty of somebody's rules is still one thing that happened to
+   * them.
+   *
+   * Rules the actor owns are skipped: configuring your own paging is not an
+   * administrative act and does not need announcing to yourself.
+   */
+  private async reportAdministrativeChange(data: {
+    action: AuditLogAction;
+    actorUserId: ObjectID;
+    rules: Array<Model>;
+    updatedFields?: JSONObject | undefined;
+    props: DatabaseCommonInteractionProps;
+  }): Promise<void> {
+    const notifiedOwnerIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>();
+
+    for (const rule of data.rules) {
+      const ruleOwnerUserId: ObjectID | undefined = rule.userId;
+
+      if (
+        !ruleOwnerUserId ||
+        ruleOwnerUserId.toString() === data.actorUserId.toString()
+      ) {
         continue;
       }
 
-      const rule: Model = new Model();
-      rule.projectId = projectId;
-      rule.userId = userId;
-      this.applyNotificationMethod(rule, notificationMethod);
-      rule.incidentSeverityId = incidentSeverity.id!;
-      rule.notifyAfterMinutes = 0;
-      rule.ruleType = NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT;
+      const ownerKey: string = ruleOwnerUserId.toString();
+      const isFirstRuleForThisOwner: boolean = !notifiedOwnerIds.has(ownerKey);
+      notifiedOwnerIds.add(ownerKey);
+
+      await UserNotificationRuleAdminService.recordAdminRuleChange({
+        action: data.action,
+        actorUserId: data.actorUserId,
+        ownerUserId: ruleOwnerUserId,
+        projectId: rule.projectId || data.props.tenantId,
+        ruleId: rule.id,
+        before: rule,
+        updatedFields: data.updatedFields,
+        notifyOwner: isFirstRuleForThisOwner,
+        props: data.props,
+      });
+    }
+  }
 
-      await this.create({
-        data: rule,
+  /**
+   * The delete-path guard, and the reason it is a guard at all.
+   *
+   * Deleting somebody's notification rules is the most destructive of the three
+   * write verbs and, until this hook existed, the only unguarded one: the model
+   * opened `delete` to the administrative permissions, and nothing here noticed.
+   * An admin — or anyone who had got hold of an admin session — could remove a
+   * responder's entire paging configuration and leave no record and no warning.
+   * The person it happened to would find out during an incident.
+   *
+   * What a delete guard can and cannot be. There is no R3 analogue: a deleted
+   * row routes nothing anywhere, so there is no method-versus-owner pair left to
+   * disagree. Nor is there an R1 analogue: refusing to delete the rules of
+   * somebody who is no longer on the roster would block exactly the cleanup an
+   * admin performs after a member leaves. What is left, and what actually
+   * matters, is EVIDENTIARY — establish from the database who owned these rows
+   * before they cease to exist, because after the write nothing can answer that
+   * question and the request body was never allowed to.
+   *
+   * The rows must be read here rather than in onDeleteSuccess for the same
+   * reason: _deleteBy hands the success hook only the ids it deleted, and by
+   * then the rows are gone.
+   *
+   * The query is narrowed first. onBeforeDelete runs BEFORE
+   * ModelPermission.checkDeleteQueryPermission, exactly as onBeforeUpdate runs
+   * before its update counterpart, so the raw query carries neither the tenant
+   * predicate nor the ownership predicate — see narrowQueryToCallerEntitlement.
+   * Without it, a member could point this read at another project's rules and
+   * have their owners written into the audit trail and mailed a warning about a
+   * deletion that never touched them.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  protected override async onBeforeDelete(
+    deleteBy: DeleteBy<Model>,
+  ): Promise<OnDelete<Model>> {
+    if (!deleteBy.props.userId) {
+      /*
+       * No actor, nothing to attribute. Workers and migrations delete rules
+       * (project teardown, method removal cascades) and an "an administrator
+       * deleted your rules" mail for every one of those is how the message
+       * that matters gets filtered away.
+       */
+      return {
+        deleteBy,
+        carryForward: null,
+      };
+    }
+
+    const deletedRules: Array<Model> = await this.findBy({
+      query: this.narrowQueryToCallerEntitlement(
+        deleteBy.query,
+        deleteBy.props,
+        DatabaseRequestType.Delete,
+      ),
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        userId: true,
+        projectId: true,
+        ruleType: true,
+        notifyAfterMinutes: true,
+        isOptOut: true,
+        incidentSeverityId: true,
+        alertSeverityId: true,
+        userEmailId: true,
+        userSmsId: true,
+        userCallId: true,
+        userWhatsAppId: true,
+        userTelegramId: true,
+        userPushId: true,
+        userWebhookId: true,
+      },
+      limit: LIMIT_MAX,
+      skip: 0,
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+        ignoreHooks: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    return {
+      deleteBy,
+      carryForward: {
+        deletedRules: deletedRules,
+      },
+    };
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * R6 for the delete path.
+   *
+   * Keyed the same way as the other two: the actor the SERVER resolved against
+   * the owner the DATABASE recorded, read before the rows were removed. The
+   * snapshot carried forward is now the only description of what those rules
+   * were, so it is what the audit entry is built from.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  protected override async onDeleteSuccess(
+    onDelete: OnDelete<Model>,
+    deletedItemIds: Array<ObjectID>,
+  ): Promise<OnDelete<Model>> {
+    const actorUserId: ObjectID | undefined = onDelete.deleteBy.props.userId;
+
+    if (!actorUserId) {
+      return onDelete;
+    }
+
+    const deletedRules: Array<Model> =
+      (onDelete.carryForward?.deletedRules as Array<Model> | undefined) || [];
+
+    const deletedIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>(
+      deletedItemIds.map((id: ObjectID): string => {
+        return id.toString();
+      }),
+    );
+
+    await this.reportAdministrativeChange({
+      action: AuditLogAction.Delete,
+      actorUserId: actorUserId,
+      /*
+       * Only rows the delete actually removed. The hook read every row the
+       * narrowed query matched; _deleteBy then applied the caller's own
+       * skip/limit on top, so the two sets are not always the same and a
+       * warning about a rule that still exists is a false alarm.
+       */
+      rules: deletedRules.filter((rule: Model): boolean => {
+        return Boolean(rule.id && deletedIds.has(rule.id.toString()));
+      }),
+      props: onDelete.deleteBy.props,
+    });
+
+    return onDelete;
+  }
+
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async addDefaultNotificationRulesForVerifiedMethod(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    userId: ObjectID;
+    notificationMethod: NotificationMethodDescriptor;
+  }): Promise<void> {
+    const { projectId, userId, notificationMethod } = data;
+
+    /*
+     * Read each severity list once and reuse it for both rule types it drives.
+     * Incident severities scope both ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT and
+     * ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT_EPISODE; alert severities do the same for their
+     * two.
+     */
+    const incidentSeverityIds: Array<ObjectID> =
+      await this.getIncidentSeverityIds(projectId);
+    const alertSeverityIds: Array<ObjectID> =
+      await this.getAlertSeverityIds(projectId);
+
+    await this.createSeverityScopedRules({
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT,
+      severityIds: incidentSeverityIds,
+      severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId",
+    });
+
+    await this.createSeverityScopedRules({
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT,
+      severityIds: alertSeverityIds,
+      severityColumn: "alertSeverityId",
+    });
+
+    /*
+     * The two episode rule types are severity-scoped as well, and used not to
+     * be. UserOnCallLogService counts episode rules filtered by a concrete
+     * severity id, and the episode rule pages in User Settings scope their
+     * tables the same way — so a NULL-severity episode rule matched no page and
+     * appeared in no table. Users got "defaults" that were unreachable and
+     * invisible at the same time.
+     */
+    await this.createSeverityScopedRules({
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT_EPISODE,
+      severityIds: alertSeverityIds,
+      severityColumn: "alertSeverityId",
+    });
+
+    await this.createSeverityScopedRules({
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_INCIDENT_EPISODE,
+      severityIds: incidentSeverityIds,
+      severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId",
+    });
+
+    /*
+     * These two are about the user's shift, not about anything that fired, so
+     * they legitimately have no severity and stay single rules.
+     */
+    await this.createSingleRule(
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_ON_CALL,
+    );
+    await this.createSingleRule(
+      projectId,
+      userId,
+      notificationMethod,
+      NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_OFF_CALL,
+    );
+  }
+
+  private applyNotificationMethod(
+    rule: Model,
+    descriptor: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
+  ): void {
+    if (descriptor.userEmailId) {
+      rule.userEmailId = descriptor.userEmailId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userSmsId) {
+      rule.userSmsId = descriptor.userSmsId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userCallId) {
+      rule.userCallId = descriptor.userCallId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userWhatsAppId) {
+      rule.userWhatsAppId = descriptor.userWhatsAppId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userTelegramId) {
+      rule.userTelegramId = descriptor.userTelegramId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userWebhookId) {
+      rule.userWebhookId = descriptor.userWebhookId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userPushId) {
+      rule.userPushId = descriptor.userPushId;
+    }
+  }
+
+  private getNotificationMethodQuery(
+    descriptor: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
+  ): Record<string, ObjectID> {
+    const query: Record<string, ObjectID> = {};
+    if (descriptor.userEmailId) {
+      query["userEmailId"] = descriptor.userEmailId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userSmsId) {
+      query["userSmsId"] = descriptor.userSmsId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userCallId) {
+      query["userCallId"] = descriptor.userCallId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userWhatsAppId) {
+      query["userWhatsAppId"] = descriptor.userWhatsAppId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userTelegramId) {
+      query["userTelegramId"] = descriptor.userTelegramId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userWebhookId) {
+      query["userWebhookId"] = descriptor.userWebhookId;
+    }
+    if (descriptor.userPushId) {
+      query["userPushId"] = descriptor.userPushId;
+    }
+    return query;
+  }
+
+  private async getIncidentSeverityIds(
+    projectId: ObjectID,
+  ): Promise<Array<ObjectID>> {
+    const incidentSeverities: Array<IncidentSeverity> =
+      await IncidentSeverityService.findBy({
+        query: {
+          projectId,
+        },
         props: {
           isRoot: true,
         },
+        limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
+        skip: 0,
+        select: {
+          _id: true,
+        },
       });
-    }
+
+    return incidentSeverities.map((severity: IncidentSeverity): ObjectID => {
+      return severity.id!;
+    });
   }
 
-  private async createAlertOnCallRules(
+  private async getAlertSeverityIds(
     projectId: ObjectID,
-    userId: ObjectID,
-    notificationMethod: NotificationMethodDescriptor,
-  ): Promise<void> {
+  ): Promise<Array<ObjectID>> {
     const alertSeverities: Array<AlertSeverity> =
       await AlertSeverityService.findBy({
         query: {
@@ -3007,14 +5490,33 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
         },
       });
 
-    for (const alertSeverity of alertSeverities) {
+    return alertSeverities.map((severity: AlertSeverity): ObjectID => {
+      return severity.id!;
+    });
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * Seed one rule per severity for a severity-scoped rule type, skipping any
+   * (method, severity, ruleType) triple the user already has. The duplicate
+   * check is keyed on the same columns the write sets, so re-verifying a method
+   * never doubles a user's rules — and therefore never doubles their pages.
+   */
+  private async createSeverityScopedRules(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    userId: ObjectID;
+    notificationMethod: NotificationMethodDescriptor;
+    ruleType: NotificationRuleType;
+    severityIds: Array<ObjectID>;
+    severityColumn: "incidentSeverityId" | "alertSeverityId";
+  }): Promise<void> {
+    for (const severityId of data.severityIds) {
       const existingRule: Model | null = await this.findOneBy({
         query: {
-          projectId,
-          userId,
-          ...this.getNotificationMethodQuery(notificationMethod),
-          alertSeverityId: alertSeverity.id!,
-          ruleType: NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT,
+          projectId: data.projectId,
+          userId: data.userId,
+          ...this.getNotificationMethodQuery(data.notificationMethod),
+          [data.severityColumn]: severityId,
+          ruleType: data.ruleType,
         } as any,
         props: {
           isRoot: true,
@@ -3026,12 +5528,12 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
       }
 
       const rule: Model = new Model();
-      rule.projectId = projectId;
-      rule.userId = userId;
-      this.applyNotificationMethod(rule, notificationMethod);
-      rule.alertSeverityId = alertSeverity.id!;
+      rule.projectId = data.projectId;
+      rule.userId = data.userId;
+      this.applyNotificationMethod(rule, data.notificationMethod);
+      rule[data.severityColumn] = severityId;
       rule.notifyAfterMinutes = 0;
-      rule.ruleType = NotificationRuleType.ON_CALL_EXECUTED_ALERT;
+      rule.ruleType = data.ruleType;
 
       await this.create({
         data: rule,
@@ -3119,5 +5621,982 @@ export class Service extends DatabaseService<Model> {
       },
     });
   }
+
+  /**
+   * What this user would lose by deleting these notification rules.
+   *
+   * Ask this BEFORE deleting. It reads and returns; it writes nothing and
+   * refuses nothing, and the caller is expected to go ahead and delete anyway
+   * if that is what the human wants after reading it.
+   *
+   * The rule ids are INTERSECTED with the rules this user actually has in this
+   * project rather than trusted — the read is scoped by (projectId, userId) in
+   * the query itself, so an id belonging to somebody else, or to another
+   * project, simply matches nothing and contributes nothing to the answer.
+   * That is the only place row scoping can come from: a column access list
+   * cannot restrict WHICH ROWS a caller sees, because Permission.CurrentUser is
+   * auto-granted to every authenticated caller and so never means "only my own
+   * row".
+   *
+   * An empty id list is legal and returns a zero-deletion impact, which is
+   * still worth something: it carries this user's responder status, their
+   * reachability and whether the project's fallback is on.
+   *
+   * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   * NOT WIRED TODAY. READ THIS BEFORE ASSUMING IT GUARDS ANYTHING.
+   *
+   * This method and getNotificationMethodDeletionImpact below have NO production
+   * caller. The delete guard that actually ships is client-side, in
+   * App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Components/NotificationMethods/NotificationMethod.tsx
+   * (useNotificationMethodDeleteGuard + DeletionImpactModal), and it computes the
+   * same answer in the browser from the deleting user's OWN rules.
+   *
+   * That is adequate for the case that ships: a person deleting their own
+   * notification method or their own rule can read all of their own rules, and
+   * one user's rule set is small and bounded. It is NOT adequate for an
+   * administrator computing the impact of deleting somebody ELSE's
+   * configuration, which is what this exists for - and that is Phase 3, which is
+   * not merged.
+   *
+   * So this is deliberately-retained, currently-unreachable code, kept because
+   * the admin path needs exactly it and because it holds one thing the browser
+   * copy cannot: it reads EVERY rule for the user rather than a page, and it
+   * derives a rule's severity from the column its RULE TYPE dictates rather than
+   * whichever column happens to be populated.
+   *
+   * Retaining unreachable code is a real cost and this comment is the price of
+   * it: nothing here enforces anything server-side today. A deletion is not
+   * validated, refused or even observed by this service. If you are reading this
+   * because you assumed the server checked, it does not.
+   * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async getRuleDeletionImpact(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    userId: ObjectID;
+    notificationRuleIds: Array<ObjectID>;
+  }): Promise<NotificationDeletionImpact> {
+    const targetRuleIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>(
+      data.notificationRuleIds.map((ruleId: ObjectID): string => {
+        return ruleId.toString();
+      }),
+    );
+
+    return this.computeDeletionImpact({
+      projectId: data.projectId,
+      userId: data.userId,
+      isBeingDeleted: (rule: Model): boolean => {
+        return targetRuleIds.has(rule.id?.toString() || "");
+      },
+      deletedMethod: undefined,
+    });
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * What this user would lose by deleting one notification method.
+   *
+   * This is the dangerous one. Deleting a method is not a small write: every
+   * method foreign key on UserNotificationRule is onDelete: "CASCADE", and each
+   * method service deletes the same rows itself in onBeforeDelete, so removing
+   * one phone number takes every rule that pointed at it with it. Somebody
+   * tidying up an old number has no reason to expect that, and nothing on the
+   * screen tells them.
+   *
+   * The method row is looked up scoped by projectId, and the userId comes from
+   * the ROW rather than from the caller. Both matter: the projectId scope is
+   * what stops a caller probing method ids from other projects, and taking the
+   * userId from the row is what stops a caller asking for one user's method
+   * under another user's name and getting an answer that belongs to neither.
+   */
+  @CaptureSpan()
+  public async getNotificationMethodDeletionImpact(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    methodType: ReadinessMethodType;
+    methodId: ObjectID;
+  }): Promise<NotificationDeletionImpact> {
+    const method: DeletedNotificationMethod =
+      await this.resolveNotificationMethod(data);
+
+    return this.computeDeletionImpact({
+      projectId: data.projectId,
+      userId: method.userId,
+      isBeingDeleted: (rule: Model): boolean => {
+        return (
+          this.getRuleMethodId(rule, data.methodType)?.toString() ===
+          data.methodId.toString()
+        );
+      },
+      deletedMethod: method,
+    });
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Read the method row being deleted, scoped to the project, and reduce it to
+   * the three things the preview needs: whose it is, which channel it is on,
+   * and whether it was ever verified.
+   *
+   * Webhooks report isVerified: true with no column behind it. UserWebhook has
+   * no verification concept at all — its presence IS the whole test, which is
+   * how the fallback treats it and how readiness reports it — so calling it
+   * unverified here would tell somebody that deleting the one channel
+   * guaranteed to work costs them nothing.
+   */
+  private async resolveNotificationMethod(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    methodType: ReadinessMethodType;
+    methodId: ObjectID;
+  }): Promise<DeletedNotificationMethod> {
+    const query: {
+      _id: ObjectID;
+      projectId: ObjectID;
+    } = {
+      _id: data.methodId,
+      projectId: data.projectId,
+    };
+
+    const props: { isRoot: boolean } = {
+      isRoot: true,
+    };
+
+    type ResolvedRow = {
+      userId?: ObjectID | undefined;
+      isVerified?: boolean | undefined;
+    } | null;
+
+    let row: ResolvedRow = null;
+    let isVerified: boolean = false;
+
+    if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Email) {
+      row = await UserEmailService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.SMS) {
+      row = await UserSmsService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Call) {
+      row = await UserCallService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Push) {
+      row = await UserPushService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.WhatsApp) {
+      row = await UserWhatsAppService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Telegram) {
+      row = await UserTelegramService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true, isVerified: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row?.isVerified);
+    } else if (data.methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Webhook) {
+      row = await UserWebhookService.findOneBy({
+        query: query,
+        select: { _id: true, userId: true },
+        props: props,
+      });
+      isVerified = Boolean(row);
+    } else {
+      throw new BadDataException(
+        `${data.methodType} is not a notification method`,
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (!row || !row.userId) {
+      throw new BadDataException("Notification method not found");
+    }
+
+    return {
+      methodType: data.methodType,
+      userId: row.userId,
+      isVerified: isVerified,
+    };
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * The foreign key a rule uses to point at a method of this channel. One
+   * lookup table rather than seven inline comparisons, so a rule can never be
+   * tested against the wrong column — which would report a WhatsApp rule as
+   * surviving the deletion of the SMS number it does not use, or worse, the
+   * reverse.
+   */
+  private getRuleMethodId(
+    rule: Model,
+    methodType: ReadinessMethodType,
+  ): ObjectID | undefined {
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Email) {
+      return rule.userEmailId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.SMS) {
+      return rule.userSmsId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Call) {
+      return rule.userCallId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Push) {
+      return rule.userPushId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.WhatsApp) {
+      return rule.userWhatsAppId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Telegram) {
+      return rule.userTelegramId;
+    }
+
+    if (methodType === ReadinessMethodType.Webhook) {
+      return rule.userWebhookId;
+    }
+
+    return undefined;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * The before/after picture both entry points share.
+   *
+   * Deliberately shaped as "read every rule this user has, then ask a predicate
+   * which of them go" rather than "count the rules that go". Coverage is a
+   * property of what is LEFT, so the rules that survive are as load-bearing as
+   * the ones that do not: a cell with two rules on two methods loses nothing
+   * when one of them goes, and the only way to know that is to have read both.
+   */
+  private async computeDeletionImpact(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    userId: ObjectID;
+    isBeingDeleted: (rule: Model) => boolean;
+    deletedMethod: DeletedNotificationMethod | undefined;
+  }): Promise<NotificationDeletionImpact> {
+    const cellStates: Map<string, DeletionCellState> = new Map<
+      string,
+      DeletionCellState
+    >();
+    const handoffStates: Map<NotificationRuleType, DeletionHandoffState> =
+      new Map<NotificationRuleType, DeletionHandoffState>();
+
+    let rulesDeletedCount: number = 0;
+
+    type FoldRuleFunction = (rule: Model) => void;
+
+    /*
+     * Folded as each page arrives rather than accumulated and folded after.
+     * Every rule collapses into one of a few dozen cells, so holding the rows
+     * would mean carrying the whole table in memory to produce a map orders of
+     * magnitude smaller — and the one project where that matters is exactly the
+     * project where this read takes more than one page.
+     */
+    const foldRule: FoldRuleFunction = (rule: Model): void => {
+      const isDeleted: boolean = data.isBeingDeleted(rule);
+
+      if (isDeleted) {
+        rulesDeletedCount++;
+      }
+
+      /*
+       * `isOptOut === true`, never `=== false`. The column is nullable and was
+       * added long after these rows started existing, so it is NULL on every
+       * rule in every existing install; testing for false would classify all of
+       * them as neither rules nor opt-outs and report a fully configured user
+       * as having nothing to lose. This is the exact dual of the predicate
+       * readiness folds with, and it has to stay that way.
+       */
+      const isOptOut: boolean = rule.isOptOut === true;
+
+      const scope: PagingRuleTypeScope | undefined =
+        PAGING_RULE_TYPE_SCOPES.find(
+          (candidate: PagingRuleTypeScope): boolean => {
+            return candidate.ruleType === rule.ruleType;
+          },
+        );
+
+      if (scope) {
+        const severityId: ObjectID | undefined = rule[scope.severityColumn];
+
+        /*
+         * A severity-scoped rule with a NULL severity matches no page at
+         * runtime, so it covers no cell and losing it costs nothing. Counting
+         * it would promise coverage that never existed.
+         */
+        if (!severityId) {
+          return;
+        }
+
+        const key: string = `${scope.ruleType}|${severityId.toString()}`;
+
+        const state: DeletionCellState = cellStates.get(key) || {
+          ruleType: scope.ruleType,
+          severityKind: scope.severityKind,
+          severityId: severityId.toString(),
+          rulesBefore: 0,
+          rulesRemoved: 0,
+          hasOptOut: false,
+        };
+
+        if (isOptOut) {
+          /*
+           * Only a SURVIVING opt-out makes the silence deliberate. Deleting the
+           * opt-out along with the last rule leaves neither, and that cell is a
+           * real gap however it was created.
+           */
+          if (!isDeleted) {
+            state.hasOptOut = true;
+          }
+        } else {
+          state.rulesBefore++;
+
+          if (isDeleted) {
+            state.rulesRemoved++;
+          }
+        }
+
+        cellStates.set(key, state);
+
+        return;
+      }
+
+      const handoffType: NotificationRuleType | undefined =
+        HANDOFF_RULE_TYPES.find((candidate: NotificationRuleType): boolean => {
+          return candidate === rule.ruleType;
+        });
+
+      if (!handoffType) {
+        // Not a rule type anything pages on. It covers nothing, so it loses nothing.
+        return;
+      }
+
+      const handoffState: DeletionHandoffState = handoffStates.get(
+        handoffType,
+      ) || {
+        rulesBefore: 0,
+        rulesRemoved: 0,
+        hasOptOut: false,
+      };
+
+      if (isOptOut) {
+        if (!isDeleted) {
+          handoffState.hasOptOut = true;
+        }
+      } else {
+        handoffState.rulesBefore++;
+
+        if (isDeleted) {
+          handoffState.rulesRemoved++;
+        }
+      }
+
+      handoffStates.set(handoffType, handoffState);
+    };
+
+    const isTruncated: boolean = await this.readEveryNotificationRuleForUser({
+      projectId: data.projectId,
+      userId: data.userId,
+      consume: (rows: Array<Model>): void => {
+        for (const rule of rows) {
+          foldRule(rule);
+        }
+      },
+    });
+
+    const lostCells: Array<DeletionCellState> = Array.from(
+      cellStates.values(),
+    ).filter((state: DeletionCellState): boolean => {
+      return (
+        state.rulesBefore > 0 &&
+        state.rulesRemoved === state.rulesBefore &&
+        !state.hasOptOut
+      );
+    });
+
+    const handoffNotificationsLost: Array<NotificationRuleType> =
+      HANDOFF_RULE_TYPES.filter((ruleType: NotificationRuleType): boolean => {
+        const state: DeletionHandoffState | undefined =
+          handoffStates.get(ruleType);
+
+        return Boolean(
+          state &&
+            state.rulesBefore > 0 &&
+            state.rulesRemoved === state.rulesBefore &&
+            !state.hasOptOut,
+        );
+      });
+
+    /*
+     * Severity names are read only when something was actually lost. The common
+     * case for this call is "nothing you care about goes", and that case should
+     * not cost two extra round trips to name cells nobody will be shown.
+     */
+    const severityNames: Map<string, DeletionSeverityRef> =
+      await this.loadSeverityNamesForCells(data.projectId, lostCells);
+
+    const coverageLost: Array<CoverageLossCell> = this.buildCoverageLossCells(
+      lostCells,
+      severityNames,
+    );
+
+    /*
+     * "Is this person on call anywhere" comes from OnCallReadinessService and
+     * from nowhere else. getReadinessForUsers rather than getReadinessForUser
+     * because the plural form OMITS a user who is not a member of the project
+     * instead of throwing for them: somebody being removed from a project is
+     * one of the perfectly legitimate reasons their methods are being deleted,
+     * and that must produce an honest "unknown" rather than an exception in
+     * front of an admin doing housekeeping.
+     */
+    const readinessList: Array<UserReadiness> =
+      await OnCallReadinessService.getReadinessForUsers(
+        [data.userId],
+        data.projectId,
+      );
+
+    const readiness: UserReadiness | undefined = readinessList[0];
+
+    const verifiedMethods: Array<ReadinessMethod> = (
+      readiness?.methods || []
+    ).filter((method: ReadinessMethod): boolean => {
+      return method.isVerified;
+    });
+
+    const remainingVerifiedMethods: Array<ReadinessMethod> = [
+      ...verifiedMethods,
+    ];
+
+    if (data.deletedMethod && data.deletedMethod.isVerified) {
+      /*
+       * Readiness returns one entry per method ROW, and the row being deleted is
+       * identified by its CHANNEL rather than by its id. Removing exactly ONE
+       * entry of that channel is what makes the count right for a user with two
+       * verified SMS numbers who is deleting one of them: the other survives,
+       * and so does the entry.
+       *
+       * ReadinessMethod does now carry methodId, so an exact match is available;
+       * matching on the channel is kept because it is equivalent HERE and not
+       * because the id is missing. The only consumer of this list is
+       * resolveReachability, which reads its LENGTH and its methodTypes and
+       * nothing else, so which of two same-channel entries is dropped cannot
+       * change the answer. Anything added below that cares about a specific row
+       * must match on methodId instead — this equivalence is a property of the
+       * current consumer, not a licence.
+       */
+      const index: number = remainingVerifiedMethods.findIndex(
+        (method: ReadinessMethod): boolean => {
+          return method.methodType === data.deletedMethod?.methodType;
+        },
+      );
+
+      if (index >= 0) {
+        remainingVerifiedMethods.splice(index, 1);
+      }
+    }
+
+    const reachability: PostDeletionReachability = this.resolveReachability(
+      readiness,
+      remainingVerifiedMethods,
+    );
+
+    const project: Project | null = await ProjectService.findOneById({
+      id: data.projectId,
+      select: {
+        _id: true,
+        disableOnCallNotificationFallback: true,
+      },
+      props: {
+        isRoot: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    /*
+     * Read exactly as readiness reads it, including what a missing project row
+     * means. Agreeing with the readiness page matters more here than picking
+     * the louder default independently would: two surfaces that disagree about
+     * whether pages are dropped teach people to trust neither.
+     */
+    const isFallbackEnabled: boolean =
+      !project?.disableOnCallNotificationFallback;
+
+    return {
+      projectId: data.projectId,
+      userId: data.userId,
+      isOnCallResponder: Boolean(readiness && readiness.reachedVia.length > 0),
+      reachedVia: readiness?.reachedVia || [],
+      rulesDeletedCount: rulesDeletedCount,
+      coverageLost: coverageLost,
+      handoffNotificationsLost: handoffNotificationsLost,
+      reachability: reachability,
+      verifiedMethodCountAfterDeletion: remainingVerifiedMethods.length,
+      isFallbackEnabled: isFallbackEnabled,
+      isTruncated: isTruncated,
+      warnings: this.buildDeletionWarnings({
+        deletedMethod: data.deletedMethod,
+        rulesDeletedCount: rulesDeletedCount,
+        readiness: readiness,
+        reachability: reachability,
+        remainingVerifiedMethods: remainingVerifiedMethods,
+        coverageLost: coverageLost,
+        handoffNotificationsLost: handoffNotificationsLost,
+        isFallbackEnabled: isFallbackEnabled,
+        isTruncated: isTruncated,
+      }),
+    };
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Every notification rule this user has in this project, one page at a time.
+   *
+   * Returns whether the read was TRUNCATED rather than throwing or silently
+   * stopping. A truncated read here is not symmetric in its consequences:
+   * unread rules that would have survived make this over-warn, which costs a
+   * moment of an admin's attention, while unread rules that would have been
+   * DELETED make it under-warn, which is the whole failure this feature exists
+   * to prevent. Either way the caller is told.
+   *
+   * The sort is `_id` ascending because OFFSET paging over a query with no
+   * total order can return one row twice and skip another — and the default
+   * sort would be `createdAt DESC`, which is emphatically not unique for a
+   * user whose default rules were all written in one transaction.
+   */
+  private async readEveryNotificationRuleForUser(data: {
+    projectId: ObjectID;
+    userId: ObjectID;
+    consume: (rules: Array<Model>) => void;
+  }): Promise<boolean> {
+    let skip: number = 0;
+
+    for (let page: number = 0; page < MAX_DELETION_IMPACT_PAGES; page++) {
+      const rows: Array<Model> = await this.findBy({
+        query: {
+          projectId: data.projectId,
+          userId: data.userId,
+        },
+        select: {
+          _id: true,
+          ruleType: true,
+          incidentSeverityId: true,
+          alertSeverityId: true,
+          isOptOut: true,
+          userEmailId: true,
+          userSmsId: true,
+          userCallId: true,
+          userPushId: true,
+          userWhatsAppId: true,
+          userTelegramId: true,
+          userWebhookId: true,
+        },
+        sort: {
+          _id: SortOrder.Ascending,
+        } as Sort<Model>,
+        limit: DELETION_IMPACT_PAGE_SIZE,
+        skip: skip,
+        props: {
+          isRoot: true,
+        },
+      });
+
+      data.consume(rows);
+
+      if (rows.length < DELETION_IMPACT_PAGE_SIZE) {
+        return false;
+      }
+
+      skip += rows.length;
+    }
+
+    logger.error(
+      `UserNotificationRuleService stopped reading notification rules for user ${data.userId.toString()} in project ${data.projectId.toString()} after ${MAX_DELETION_IMPACT_PAGES} pages of ${DELETION_IMPACT_PAGE_SIZE} rows. The deletion impact for this user is INCOMPLETE and may understate what the deletion removes.`,
+    );
+
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Display names for the severities of the cells that are actually lost, in
+   * the project's own severity order.
+   *
+   * Not paged, unlike the rule read: severity lists are a handful of rows per
+   * project by construction (they are a UI-managed enumeration, not user data),
+   * and LIMIT_PER_PROJECT is three orders of magnitude past any of them.
+   */
+  private async loadSeverityNamesForCells(
+    projectId: ObjectID,
+    lostCells: Array<DeletionCellState>,
+  ): Promise<Map<string, DeletionSeverityRef>> {
+    const severityNames: Map<string, DeletionSeverityRef> = new Map<
+      string,
+      DeletionSeverityRef
+    >();
+
+    const needsIncident: boolean = lostCells.some(
+      (cell: DeletionCellState): boolean => {
+        return cell.severityKind === SeverityKind.Incident;
+      },
+    );
+
+    const needsAlert: boolean = lostCells.some(
+      (cell: DeletionCellState): boolean => {
+        return cell.severityKind === SeverityKind.Alert;
+      },
+    );
+
+    if (needsIncident) {
+      const incidentSeverities: Array<IncidentSeverity> =
+        await IncidentSeverityService.findBy({
+          query: {
+            projectId: projectId,
+          },
+          select: {
+            _id: true,
+            name: true,
+          },
+          sort: {
+            order: SortOrder.Ascending,
+          },
+          limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
+          skip: 0,
+          props: {
+            isRoot: true,
+          },
+        });
+
+      incidentSeverities.forEach(
+        (severity: IncidentSeverity, index: number): void => {
+          if (!severity.id) {
+            return;
+          }
+
+          severityNames.set(
+            this.severityNameKey(SeverityKind.Incident, severity.id.toString()),
+            {
+              name: severity.name || "Unnamed Severity",
+              rank: index,
+            },
+          );
+        },
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (needsAlert) {
+      const alertSeverities: Array<AlertSeverity> =
+        await AlertSeverityService.findBy({
+          query: {
+            projectId: projectId,
+          },
+          select: {
+            _id: true,
+            name: true,
+          },
+          sort: {
+            order: SortOrder.Ascending,
+          },
+          limit: LIMIT_PER_PROJECT,
+          skip: 0,
+          props: {
+            isRoot: true,
+          },
+        });
+
+      alertSeverities.forEach(
+        (severity: AlertSeverity, index: number): void => {
+          if (!severity.id) {
+            return;
+          }
+
+          severityNames.set(
+            this.severityNameKey(SeverityKind.Alert, severity.id.toString()),
+            {
+              name: severity.name || "Unnamed Severity",
+              rank: index,
+            },
+          );
+        },
+      );
+    }
+
+    return severityNames;
+  }
+
+  private severityNameKey(kind: SeverityKind, severityId: string): string {
+    /*
+     * Keyed by KIND as well as by id. Incident and alert severities are
+     * different tables with independently generated ids, and a map keyed on the
+     * id alone would let one name a cell of the other kind if the two ever
+     * collided — a one-in-a-uuid event that would be indistinguishable from a
+     * mislabelled warning if it happened.
+     */
+    return `${kind}|${severityId}`;
+  }
+
+  private buildCoverageLossCells(
+    lostCells: Array<DeletionCellState>,
+    severityNames: Map<string, DeletionSeverityRef>,
+  ): Array<CoverageLossCell> {
+    const ordered: Array<DeletionCellState> = [...lostCells].sort(
+      (a: DeletionCellState, b: DeletionCellState): number => {
+        const ruleTypeDifference: number =
+          this.pagingRuleTypeRank(a.ruleType) -
+          this.pagingRuleTypeRank(b.ruleType);
+
+        if (ruleTypeDifference !== 0) {
+          return ruleTypeDifference;
+        }
+
+        /*
+         * Severity order, not alphabetical. "Sev1, Sev2, Sev3" happens to sort
+         * both ways; "Critical, High, Low" does not, and a warning that lists
+         * severities in an order the user has never seen them in reads as a
+         * different set of severities.
+         */
+        return (
+          this.severityRank(a, severityNames) -
+          this.severityRank(b, severityNames)
+        );
+      },
+    );
+
+    return ordered.map((cell: DeletionCellState): CoverageLossCell => {
+      const ref: DeletionSeverityRef | undefined = severityNames.get(
+        this.severityNameKey(cell.severityKind, cell.severityId),
+      );
+
+      return {
+        ruleType: cell.ruleType,
+        severityId: new ObjectID(cell.severityId),
+        severityName: ref?.name,
+        rulesRemoved: cell.rulesRemoved,
+      };
+    });
+  }
+
+  private pagingRuleTypeRank(ruleType: NotificationRuleType): number {
+    const index: number = PAGING_RULE_TYPE_SCOPES.findIndex(
+      (scope: PagingRuleTypeScope): boolean => {
+        return scope.ruleType === ruleType;
+      },
+    );
+
+    return index < 0 ? PAGING_RULE_TYPE_SCOPES.length : index;
+  }
+
+  private severityRank(
+    cell: DeletionCellState,
+    severityNames: Map<string, DeletionSeverityRef>,
+  ): number {
+    const ref: DeletionSeverityRef | undefined = severityNames.get(
+      this.severityNameKey(cell.severityKind, cell.severityId),
+    );
+
+    /*
+     * A severity we could not name sorts last rather than first. It is the one
+     * entry whose sentence will read "this severity", and burying it under the
+     * ones that read properly costs nothing; leading with it looks like a bug.
+     */
+    return ref ? ref.rank : Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER;
+  }
+
+  private resolveReachability(
+    readiness: UserReadiness | undefined,
+    remainingVerifiedMethods: Array<ReadinessMethod>,
+  ): PostDeletionReachability {
+    if (!readiness) {
+      return PostDeletionReachability.Unknown;
+    }
+
+    /*
+     * Checked first, and it is not merely a nicety of wording. Readiness says
+     * NotReachable when the user has no USABLE method — which includes the case
+     * where every verified method they own is on a channel the project has
+     * switched off — so this branch is also what keeps the branches below from
+     * promising "still reachable" on the strength of a verified method that
+     * nothing can send on.
+     */
+    if (readiness.status === ReadinessStatus.NotReachable) {
+      return PostDeletionReachability.AlreadyNotReachable;
+    }
+
+    if (remainingVerifiedMethods.length === 0) {
+      return PostDeletionReachability.NotReachable;
+    }
+
+    const unswitchableChannels: Array<string> = channelsWithNoProjectSwitch();
+
+    const hasUnswitchableChannel: boolean = remainingVerifiedMethods.some(
+      (method: ReadinessMethod): boolean => {
+        return unswitchableChannels.includes(method.methodType);
+      },
+    );
+
+    if (hasUnswitchableChannel) {
+      return PostDeletionReachability.Reachable;
+    }
+
+    return PostDeletionReachability.DependsOnProjectSettings;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * The sentences a human reads in the confirmation dialog, most consequential
+   * first.
+   *
+   * Every line names a specific thing that is lost AND what happens because of
+   * it, which is the same contract OnCallReadinessService.buildReasons keeps
+   * and for the same reason: "no rule for Sev4" is a shrug, "no rule for Sev4,
+   * and those pages are dropped" is a decision. Nothing here says "are you
+   * sure?" — the caller owns the question, and this owns the facts it is asked
+   * about.
+   */
+  private buildDeletionWarnings(data: {
+    deletedMethod: DeletedNotificationMethod | undefined;
+    rulesDeletedCount: number;
+    readiness: UserReadiness | undefined;
+    reachability: PostDeletionReachability;
+    remainingVerifiedMethods: Array<ReadinessMethod>;
+    coverageLost: Array<CoverageLossCell>;
+    handoffNotificationsLost: Array<NotificationRuleType>;
+    isFallbackEnabled: boolean;
+    isTruncated: boolean;
+  }): Array<string> {
+    const warnings: Array<string> = [];
+
+    /*
+     * The cascade goes first because it is the part nobody clicked. Everything
+     * below is a consequence of it, and a list that started with the
+     * consequences would read as though the notification rules were being
+     * deleted for no reason at all.
+     */
+    if (data.deletedMethod && data.rulesDeletedCount > 0) {
+      warnings.push(
+        `Deleting this ${data.deletedMethod.methodType} notification method also deletes ${data.rulesDeletedCount} notification ${data.rulesDeletedCount === 1 ? "rule" : "rules"} that use it - a notification rule cannot outlive the method it sends on.`,
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (data.reachability === PostDeletionReachability.NotReachable) {
+      warnings.push(
+        "This is the last verified notification method on this account - after it there is nothing left to page this user on, and the on-call fallback has nothing to fall back to either.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (!data.readiness) {
+      warnings.push(
+        "Whether this user is on call could not be determined - they may no longer be a member of this project.",
+      );
+    } else if (data.readiness.reachedVia.length > 0) {
+      const sources: Array<string> = data.readiness.reachedVia.map(
+        (source: ResponderSource): string => {
+          return responderSourceProse(source);
+        },
+      );
+
+      warnings.push(
+        `This user is on call in this project (${sources.join(", ")}), so anything lost here is a page that does not arrive.`,
+      );
+    } else {
+      /*
+       * Said out loud rather than left as silence. "Not on call" is the one
+       * answer that makes this whole dialog safe to click through, and an admin
+       * who has to infer it from the absence of a warning will infer it wrongly
+       * at least once.
+       */
+      warnings.push(
+        "This user is not on any on-call policy right now, so nothing here can cost a page today - it will if they are ever added to one.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    for (const scope of PAGING_RULE_TYPE_SCOPES) {
+      const severityNames: Array<string> = data.coverageLost
+        .filter((cell: CoverageLossCell): boolean => {
+          return cell.ruleType === scope.ruleType;
+        })
+        .map((cell: CoverageLossCell): string => {
+          return cell.severityName || "this severity";
+        });
+
+      if (severityNames.length === 0) {
+        continue;
+      }
+
+      /*
+       * One sentence per rule type listing its severities, not one per cell. A
+       * user deleting a method that carried all their default rules would
+       * otherwise be handed one line per (rule type x severity) — sixteen
+       * near-identical sentences that nobody reads to the end of.
+       */
+      const subject: string = `After this, no rule covers ${severityNames.join(", ")} ${scope.subjectNoun}`;
+
+      if (data.isFallbackEnabled) {
+        warnings.push(
+          `${subject} - those pages fall back to whatever this user has verified, which is not what they configured`,
+        );
+      } else {
+        warnings.push(
+          `${subject} - those pages are dropped, because on-call fallback is disabled for this project`,
+        );
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (
+      data.handoffNotificationsLost.includes(
+        NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_ON_CALL,
+      )
+    ) {
+      warnings.push("This user will no longer be told when they go on call.");
+    }
+
+    if (
+      data.handoffNotificationsLost.includes(
+        NotificationRuleType.WHEN_USER_GOES_OFF_CALL,
+      )
+    ) {
+      warnings.push("This user will no longer be told when they go off call.");
+    }
+
+    if (data.reachability === PostDeletionReachability.AlreadyNotReachable) {
+      warnings.push(
+        "This user already has no usable notification method, so nothing can page them today either - this deletion is not what breaks it.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (
+      data.reachability === PostDeletionReachability.DependsOnProjectSettings
+    ) {
+      const channels: Array<string> = [];
+
+      for (const method of data.remainingVerifiedMethods) {
+        if (!channels.includes(method.methodType)) {
+          channels.push(method.methodType);
+        }
+      }
+
+      warnings.push(
+        `Every verified method left on this account is on a channel the project can switch off (${channels.join(", ")}) - check On-Call > Readiness to confirm this user can still be paged.`,
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (data.isTruncated) {
+      warnings.push(
+        "This preview is incomplete - there are more notification rules on this account than it could read, so the real loss may be larger than what is listed here.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    return warnings;
+  }
 }
 export default new Service();