Session Objective

Sam asked to double-check through Microsoft Graph because form #86 with first name Roy appeared as an email banner and then could not be found, and forms #83-#85 also appeared missing.

What Was Checked

• Direct Microsoft Graph against users/Sam@kylawoffice.com/messages and mailFolders.
• Outlook connector list results, which are Graph-backed.
• Live WordPress database tables wp_sal_contact_leads and wp_sal_contact_attempts over Cloudways SSH/WP-CLI.
• Live Litify/Salesforce intakes and intake history in LITIFY_ORG.
• Inbox message rules for any enabled rule matching website leads or moving these messages to Junk.

Findings

• Form #86 was not missing. Direct Graph found New Website Intake Lead #86 - Roy Taylor at 2026-05-30T11:52:33Z, unread, in the Junk Email folder. The corresponding sent copy is in Sent Items at 2026-05-30T11:52:31Z.
• Form #85 was also Roy Taylor. It exists in Junk at 2026-05-30T11:52:33Z and in Sent Items at 2026-05-30T11:52:30Z.
• Form #84 was Scott Wemby. It exists in Junk at 2026-05-30T04:24:42Z and in Sent Items at 2026-05-30T04:24:40Z.
• Form #83 was a test submission, test test, from 2026-05-29T21:06:20Z in WordPress. Direct Graph found it in Junk at 2026-05-29T21:06:30Z and in Sent Items at 2026-05-29T21:06:28Z.
• WordPress attempts show email delivery succeeded for #83-#86 with Graph response code 202, Litify succeeded, attribution succeeded where GCLID existed, and Teams failed with HTTP 400.
• WordPress lead table shows #85 and #86 were both Roy Taylor, created in the same second, with different submission tokens. This points to two separate POSTs rather than one database retry reusing the same token.
• Litify has two Roy intakes: INT-26053055395 and INT-26053055396, created one second apart by Litify Services. Both received the same GCLID patch.
• The Web_Form__c object did not show Roy because this custom intake route writes directly to litify_pm__Intake__c; it is not the legacy/custom Salesforce Web_Form__c route.
• Inbox rules did not show an enabled website-lead rule moving these messages to Junk. Headers showed low spam score (SCL=1) and internal-originating mail, so the remaining likely cause is mailbox junk handling, blocked/safe sender settings, or a hidden/client-side junk decision rather than the website or Litify path.

Status

Diagnostic work is complete. No live mailbox or website mutations were made. Recommended next repair is to create or update a mail flow/mailbox rule so New Website Intake Lead from Sam routes to Inbox or a visible intake folder, then optionally move the current #83-#86 delivered copies out of Junk.