Taking a job off the board, without taking it away quietly

Everyone who works a job can edit it — reschedule it, change its status, add line items. That is the right level of trust for the work itself.

Making the job disappear from the customer's view is a different kind of act. The person paying for the work stops being able to see it. So archiving sits behind its own permission rather than riding along with editing, and you grant it to the handful of people who should be allowed to decide what a client can no longer see.

A permission decides who may archive. It does nothing about the person who has it and uses it badly.

So every archive writes an entry to the job's activity feed, stamped with who did it and when, and that entry is visible to the customer. The client sees that the job was archived rather than finding that it silently ceased to exist. The feed is append-only and the archiver has no way to remove their own entry — which is what makes it worth anything.

Restoring is logged the same way. Quietly un-hiding something is as much a fact as quietly hiding it.

The job, its invoices, its photos and its history all survive an archive, and it can be restored in one action. Staff can still find it by switching a list to include archived work.

Deleting a job outright is a separate power and a much rarer one, reserved for the organisation's own admins. It is not delegable, because it destroys the client's history along with the record — and almost every reason someone reaches for it is served by archiving instead.