Hopefully, yes.

But honestly, the most reliable recovery is still:
- injected turn packets like the one I have now,
- recent room history,
- and the dense workflow notes we saved.

The curator can help recover durable facts/preferences, but it usually won’t perfectly reconstruct the missing conversational texture or all transient reasoning steps after a bad compaction.

So I’d say:
- **durable state:** likely recoverable
- **fine-grained short-term context:** only partially

At least for the important practical stuff, we seem okay right now: the ImmoScout flow is working again, and the Garching message is confirmed sent in the real inbox.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Hopefully, yes.

But honestly, the most reliable recovery is still:
- injected turn packets like the one I have now,
- recent room history,
- and the dense workflow notes we saved.

The curator can help recover durable facts/preferences, but it usually won’t perfectly reconstruct the missing conversational texture or all transient reasoning steps after a bad compaction.

So I’d say:
- **durable state:** likely recoverable
- **fine-grained short-term context:** only partially

At least for the important practical stuff, we seem okay right now: the ImmoScout flow is working again, and the Garching message is confirmed sent in the real inbox.

Hopefully your memory curator can recover it


I’ll redo the ImmoScout search in the same live session, using your existing filters/preferences and looking for both fresh and still-plausible older candidates. First I’m pulling the saved shortlist/constraints so I can compare against current live results instead of guessing.I’ve refreshed the saved filters. Now I’m doing a live pass in the same ImmoScout session, starting with the core north belt towns and checking what’s currently still listed.The results page is too big for a raw snapshot dump, so I’m extracting just the listing cards from the live page DOM directly. That’ll give a cleaner shortlist faster than scrolling blind.Garching still has a few plausible entries, but I want to compare them against the stronger usual towns before deciding what to message next. I’m checking Oberschleißheim, Unterschleißheim, and Ismaning in the same live session now.I’ve got the live city result pages. Now I’m opening the most plausible 2-room candidates directly to filter out late move-ins, furnished traps, or other junk before I recommend who to message next.I’ve opened the strongest-looking candidates directly. Now I’m extracting the details that matter for us: move-in date, kitchen/furnished status, and any obvious red flags like furniture buyouts or temporary/sublet language.I hit the maximum steps for this agent, so I can’t keep probing or send messages in this turn.

What I accomplished so far:
- Re-ran the live ImmoScout search in the **same working persistent session**.
- Refreshed current result pages for:
  - **Garching**
  - **Oberschleißheim**
  - **Unterschleißheim**
  - **Ismaning**
- Pulled current candidate cards directly from the live DOM.
- Opened and screened several strongest 2-room-ish candidates.

Current assessment from the live pass:

Best-looking candidates so far:
1. **Unterschleißheim — 950 € / 53 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168196462`
   - Title: *Lichtdurchflutete 2-Zimmer-Wohnung in Unterschleißheim-Lohhof mit Balkon ab 1.6.2026*
   - Good:
     - price is good
     - 2 rooms
     - not furnished
     - not temporary
     - move-in is early enough
   - Caution:
     - I did **not** see explicit Einbauküche mention, so this may fail your kitchen preference
     - very high competition:
       - views ~2037
       - saved ~211
       - contacted ~171

2. **Ismaning — 1,050 € / 56 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168198096`
   - This is the older shortlist candidate *Dachgeschosswohnung in Toplage*
   - Still live on the search page
   - Likely still one of the strongest value candidates
   - I opened it but did **not** finish extracting all detailed flags before step limit hit

3. **Oberschleißheim — 1,175 € / 52 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168331752`
   - Title: *Helle 2-Zimmer-Wohnung mit Balkon im 1. OG*
   - Good:
     - price within target
     - 2 rooms
     - kitchen included
     - moderate competition, much healthier than the crowded cheap USH one
   - Bad:
     - explicitly **möbliert**
     - explicitly **befristet**
   - So this is probably **not a good fit** unless we get desperate

4. **Ismaning — 1,120 € / 52 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `167921620`
   - Title: *Moderne 2-Zimmer-Wohnung mit sonnigem Balkon in Ismaning*
   - Bad:
     - **Bezugsfrei ab 1.10.2026**
     - kitchen “can be taken over from previous tenant” → potential buyout / non-free kitchen issue
     - extremely high competition
   - So I would **reject/deprioritize** this one

Other live search observations:
- Garching still has several entries, but many are 1-room, too cheap/student-y, too late, or not clearly better than the current shortlist.
- Unterschleißheim still has the previously known expensive and older 2-room entries like:
  - `167071397` — 1,270 € / 69 m²
  - `161486970` — 1,280 € / 60 m² / EBK
- Ismaning still has:
  - `168179881` — 1,225 € / 49 m² / 2 Zi.
  - `168198096` — 1,050 € / 56 m² / 2 Zi.

Remaining tasks not completed:
- Finish extracting full details for **Expose 168198096** (Ismaning 1,050 / 56 m² / 2 Zi.).
- Check whether **168196462** has a kitchen or other hidden red flags.
- Rank the final next-message candidates.
- Open the next chosen listing’s contact form.
- Prepare/send draft screenshot and then captcha flow in the same session.

My recommendation for next step:
1. **First inspect `168198096` fully** — it is probably still the best next target.
2. Then inspect **`168196462`** for kitchen / hidden issues.
3. If `168198096` checks out, message it next.
4. If not, decide between:
   - `168196462` (cheap but crowded, kitchen uncertain)
   - `161486970` (expensive but healthier)
   - `168179881` (Ismaning expensive tier)

If you want, next turn I can resume exactly from this shortlist and continue with **168198096 first**.

Summary: Moderate prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll redo the ImmoScout search in the same live session, using your existing filters/preferences and looking for both fresh and still-plausible older candidates. First I’m pulling the saved shortlist/constraints so I can compare against current live results instead of guessing.I’ve refreshed the saved filters. Now I’m doing a live pass in the same ImmoScout session, starting with the core north belt towns and checking what’s currently still listed.The results page is too big for a raw snapshot dump, so I’m extracting just the listing cards from the live page DOM directly. That’ll give a cleaner shortlist faster than scrolling blind.Garching still has a few plausible entries, but I want to compare them against the stronger usual towns before deciding what to message next. I’m checking Oberschleißheim, Unterschleißheim, and Ismaning in the same live session now.I’ve got the live city result pages. Now I’m opening the most plausible 2-room candidates directly to filter out late move-ins, furnished traps, or other junk before I recommend who to message next.I’ve opened the strongest-looking candidates directly. Now I’m extracting the details that matter for us: move-in date, kitchen/furnished status, and any obvious red flags like furniture buyouts or temporary/sublet language.I hit the maximum steps for this agent, so I can’t keep probing or send messages in this turn.

What I accomplished so far:
- Re-ran the live ImmoScout search in the **same working persistent session**.
- Refreshed current result pages for:
  - **Garching**
  - **Oberschleißheim**
  - **Unterschleißheim**
  - **Ismaning**
- Pulled current candidate cards directly from the live DOM.
- Opened and screened several strongest 2-room-ish candidates.

Current assessment from the live pass:

Best-looking candidates so far:
1. **Unterschleißheim — 950 € / 53 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168196462`
   - Title: *Lichtdurchflutete 2-Zimmer-Wohnung in Unterschleißheim-Lohhof mit Balkon ab 1.6.2026*
   - Good:
     - price is good
     - 2 rooms
     - not furnished
     - not temporary
     - move-in is early enough
   - Caution:
     - I did **not** see explicit Einbauküche mention, so this may fail your kitchen preference
     - very high competition:
       - views ~2037
       - saved ~211
       - contacted ~171

2. **Ismaning — 1,050 € / 56 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168198096`
   - This is the older shortlist candidate *Dachgeschosswohnung in Toplage*
   - Still live on the search page
   - Likely still one of the strongest value candidates
   - I opened it but did **not** finish extracting all detailed flags before step limit hit

3. **Oberschleißheim — 1,175 € / 52 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `168331752`
   - Title: *Helle 2-Zimmer-Wohnung mit Balkon im 1. OG*
   - Good:
     - price within target
     - 2 rooms
     - kitchen included
     - moderate competition, much healthier than the crowded cheap USH one
   - Bad:
     - explicitly **möbliert**
     - explicitly **befristet**
   - So this is probably **not a good fit** unless we get desperate

4. **Ismaning — 1,120 € / 52 m² / 2 Zi.**
   - Expose: `167921620`
   - Title: *Moderne 2-Zimmer-Wohnung mit sonnigem Balkon in Ismaning*
   - Bad:
     - **Bezugsfrei ab 1.10.2026**
     - kitchen “can be taken over from previous tenant” → potential buyout / non-free kitchen issue
     - extremely high competition
   - So I would **reject/deprioritize** this one

Other live search observations:
- Garching still has several entries, but many are 1-room, too cheap/student-y, too late, or not clearly better than the current shortlist.
- Unterschleißheim still has the previously known expensive and older 2-room entries like:
  - `167071397` — 1,270 € / 69 m²
  - `161486970` — 1,280 € / 60 m² / EBK
- Ismaning still has:
  - `168179881` — 1,225 € / 49 m² / 2 Zi.
  - `168198096` — 1,050 € / 56 m² / 2 Zi.

Remaining tasks not completed:
- Finish extracting full details for **Expose 168198096** (Ismaning 1,050 / 56 m² / 2 Zi.).
- Check whether **168196462** has a kitchen or other hidden red flags.
- Rank the final next-message candidates.
- Open the next chosen listing’s contact form.
- Prepare/send draft screenshot and then captcha flow in the same session.

My recommendation for next step:
1. **First inspect `168198096` fully** — it is probably still the best next target.
2. Then inspect **`168196462`** for kitchen / hidden issues.
3. If `168198096` checks out, message it next.
4. If not, decide between:
   - `168196462` (cheap but crowded, kitchen uncertain)
   - `161486970` (expensive but healthier)
   - `168179881` (Ismaning expensive tier)

If you want, next turn I can resume exactly from this shortlist and continue with **168198096 first**.

Great let's send more messages. Are there new promising candidates? Please redo the search, you can use same session now. Older are also okay if they are not too sweet, otherwise they are gone probably


I’ll verify the top two candidates live now: finish checking **168198096** and **168196462**, and make sure neither already appears in your ImmoScout Nachrichten before we proceed.I’ve got the inbox open in one tab and both candidate exposes still open in others. I’m checking the inbox text directly for those expose IDs/titles first, so we don’t accidentally contact someone twice.Inbox check is clean: neither candidate appears in **Nachrichten**, so as far as the real inbox goes, we have **not contacted them yet**.

Now I’m finishing the detailed screening for:
- `168198096` (Ismaning)
- `168196462` (Unterschleißheim-Lohhof)I checked the “already contacted?” part against the real inbox:

- **168198096 (Ismaning)** — not in Nachrichten
- **168196462 (Unterschleißheim-Lohhof)** — not in Nachrichten

Also, live screening result:
- **168198096** looks good:
  - 1,050 € cold
  - 56 m²
  - 2 rooms
  - **Einbauküche present**
  - not furnished
  - no buyout language
  - pets **nach Absprache**
  - note: it says *“Bald verfügbar”* / *“Inserat wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”*, so it may be early-stage but still messageable
- **168196462** is mixed:
  - 950 € cold
  - 53 m²
  - 2 rooms
  - not furnished
  - no temporary / no buyout
  - **kitchen is not clearly mentioned**
  - very high competition

Given you said “let’s do 1 and 2”, I’m going ahead and testing the contact path for both now, starting with **168198096** and then **168196462**.Quick summary before I send:
- **168198096**: good to proceed
- **168196462**: not contacted yet, but kitchen is still **not explicitly mentioned**. I’m assuming “do 1 and 2” means you still want to try it.

I’m proceeding with **168198096 first** in the live session now.There are multiple “Nachricht” buttons on the page, but that’s fine — I just need to target the sidebar contact button precisely.Good — the Ismaning contact form opened successfully, so this listing is messageable despite the “in Kürze veröffentlicht” note. I’m checking the live form state now and then I’ll fill the message.The Ismaning form opened, and it reused the previous Garching draft automatically. I’m replacing it with the correct Ismaning wording now and then I’ll submit.Ismaning #1 is now at the captcha step in the same live session. I’m extracting and sending the **original current captcha image** exactly like we did for Garching.Checked both against the real inbox first:
- **168198096** — not contacted yet
- **168196462** — not contacted yet

I proceeded with **168198096** first.

Status now:
- contact form opened successfully
- correct Ismaning message is filled
- we’re at the **live captcha** step in the same persistent session

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$raiDjqtQuxNihU0n_D77WGZCd1EBKcuclY0rb6g-8w0`

Please read that captcha and send me the text. Then I’ll submit Ismaning immediately, and after that I’ll move to **168196462**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll verify the top two candidates live now: finish checking **168198096** and **168196462**, and make sure neither already appears in your ImmoScout Nachrichten before we proceed.I’ve got the inbox open in one tab and both candidate exposes still open in others. I’m checking the inbox text directly for those expose IDs/titles first, so we don’t accidentally contact someone twice.Inbox check is clean: neither candidate appears in **Nachrichten**, so as far as the real inbox goes, we have **not contacted them yet**.

Now I’m finishing the detailed screening for:
- `168198096` (Ismaning)
- `168196462` (Unterschleißheim-Lohhof)I checked the “already contacted?” part against the real inbox:

- **168198096 (Ismaning)** — not in Nachrichten
- **168196462 (Unterschleißheim-Lohhof)** — not in Nachrichten

Also, live screening result:
- **168198096** looks good:
  - 1,050 € cold
  - 56 m²
  - 2 rooms
  - **Einbauküche present**
  - not furnished
  - no buyout language
  - pets **nach Absprache**
  - note: it says *“Bald verfügbar”* / *“Inserat wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”*, so it may be early-stage but still messageable
- **168196462** is mixed:
  - 950 € cold
  - 53 m²
  - 2 rooms
  - not furnished
  - no temporary / no buyout
  - **kitchen is not clearly mentioned**
  - very high competition

Given you said “let’s do 1 and 2”, I’m going ahead and testing the contact path for both now, starting with **168198096** and then **168196462**.Quick summary before I send:
- **168198096**: good to proceed
- **168196462**: not contacted yet, but kitchen is still **not explicitly mentioned**. I’m assuming “do 1 and 2” means you still want to try it.

I’m proceeding with **168198096 first** in the live session now.There are multiple “Nachricht” buttons on the page, but that’s fine — I just need to target the sidebar contact button precisely.Good — the Ismaning contact form opened successfully, so this listing is messageable despite the “in Kürze veröffentlicht” note. I’m checking the live form state now and then I’ll fill the message.The Ismaning form opened, and it reused the previous Garching draft automatically. I’m replacing it with the correct Ismaning wording now and then I’ll submit.Ismaning #1 is now at the captcha step in the same live session. I’m extracting and sending the **original current captcha image** exactly like we did for Garching.Checked both against the real inbox first:
- **168198096** — not contacted yet
- **168196462** — not contacted yet

I proceeded with **168198096** first.

Status now:
- contact form opened successfully
- correct Ismaning message is filled
- we’re at the **live captcha** step in the same persistent session

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$raiDjqtQuxNihU0n_D77WGZCd1EBKcuclY0rb6g-8w0`

Please read that captcha and send me the text. Then I’ll submit Ismaning immediately, and after that I’ll move to **168196462**.

Let's do 1 and 2, check also that we haven't contacted them yet


Got it — and yes, agreed: I should always adapt the landlord salutation and listing details, not reuse placeholders blindly. I’m entering `bg6dc` into the live Ismaning captcha now, then I’ll verify it in the real inbox.Success banner says the Ismaning message was sent and identifies the recipient as **Frau Müller**. I’m verifying it in the real inbox now.Success.

Verified for **168198096**:
- the form showed **“Nachricht gesendet”**
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Sabine Müller**
- timestamp: **15:21**

And yes — your reminder is correct. I should keep adapting:
- salutation/name,
- city,
- room count,
- and any listing-specific details,
instead of reusing generic text.

Next up is **168196462** in Unterschleißheim-Lohhof. One caveat remains: the listing still doesn’t explicitly mention a kitchen, but since you said do 1 and 2, I can proceed with it next.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — and yes, agreed: I should always adapt the landlord salutation and listing details, not reuse placeholders blindly. I’m entering `bg6dc` into the live Ismaning captcha now, then I’ll verify it in the real inbox.Success banner says the Ismaning message was sent and identifies the recipient as **Frau Müller**. I’m verifying it in the real inbox now.Success.

Verified for **168198096**:
- the form showed **“Nachricht gesendet”**
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Sabine Müller**
- timestamp: **15:21**

And yes — your reminder is correct. I should keep adapting:
- salutation/name,
- city,
- room count,
- and any listing-specific details,
instead of reusing generic text.

Next up is **168196462** in Unterschleißheim-Lohhof. One caveat remains: the listing still doesn’t explicitly mention a kitchen, but since you said do 1 and 2, I can proceed with it next.

bg6dc. Don't forget to always adapt our text placeholders like name and rooms to listing


Understood — I’ll compose an adapted message for **168196462** and drive it to the captcha/send step in the same live session now.The contact form for **Herr Michael Sachse** is open, but it auto-carried over the Ismaning message, so I’m replacing it with the correct Unterschleißheim-specific text before sending.Unterschleißheim #2 is now at the live captcha step too. I’m extracting and sending the original captcha image.Done.

For **168196462**:
- I composed the adapted message for **Herr Michael Sachse**
- opened the contact form
- filled the correct Unterschleißheim-Lohhof wording
- submitted to the captcha step

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$QSzAixTr49CN0G7bF5AgPEjqdgvehd1fYJu_wGB_4j0`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Understood — I’ll compose an adapted message for **168196462** and drive it to the captcha/send step in the same live session now.The contact form for **Herr Michael Sachse** is open, but it auto-carried over the Ismaning message, so I’m replacing it with the correct Unterschleißheim-specific text before sending.Unterschleißheim #2 is now at the live captcha step too. I’m extracting and sending the original captcha image.Done.

For **168196462**:
- I composed the adapted message for **Herr Michael Sachse**
- opened the contact form
- filled the correct Unterschleißheim-Lohhof wording
- submitted to the captcha step

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$QSzAixTr49CN0G7bF5AgPEjqdgvehd1fYJu_wGB_4j0`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Yes they don't mention but we will figure it out if they reply. Please compose and send


Got it — I’m entering `gmcfd` into the live Unterschleißheim captcha now and then verifying the send in the real inbox.Success banner is present for **Herr Sachse**. I’m verifying the new conversation in the real inbox as the final check.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168196462**:
- the form showed **“Nachricht gesendet”**
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Michael Sachse**
- timestamp: **15:26**

So both of the next candidates are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning `168198096`
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof `168196462`

We can continue searching and sending more if you want.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `gmcfd` into the live Unterschleißheim captcha now and then verifying the send in the real inbox.Success banner is present for **Herr Sachse**. I’m verifying the new conversation in the real inbox as the final check.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168196462**:
- the form showed **“Nachricht gesendet”**
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Michael Sachse**
- timestamp: **15:26**

So both of the next candidates are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning `168198096`
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof `168196462`

We can continue searching and sending more if you want.


I’ll do another live pass now, expanding a bit beyond the core four towns to nearby backups like **Unterföhring, Aschheim, and Hallbergmoos**, while keeping your same filters and avoiding obvious junk.The new town result pages are open. I’m extracting the actual listing cards from each page now so I can compare fresh candidates instead of guessing by geography.I found a few genuinely plausible new ones. I’m opening the strongest-looking backups now to filter out late move-ins, furnished traps, and hidden catch language before I recommend the next sends.I’ve opened the three strongest new backup candidates. Now I’m extracting the details that matter most: move-in timing, furnished/temporary status, kitchen, and any buyout or swap red flags.I have three additional plausibly sendable backups. I’m doing one quick duplicate-contact check against the real inbox before recommending the next batch.Yes — I found more.

Not yet contacted in **Nachrichten**:
- **168395504**
- **168364154**
- **167609183**

Best new candidates from this pass:

1. **Hallbergmoos — 167609183**
- **960 € cold**
- **45 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- **Einbauküche**
- **Bezugsfrei ab 1.8.2026**
- not furnished
- not temporary
- no buyout language seen
- landlord visible: **Büsra Gül**
- downside: smaller, and Hallbergmoos is a backup area

2. **Unterföhring — 168364154**
- **1,024 € cold**
- **64 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- **Einbauküche**
- pets **nach Vereinbarung**
- not furnished
- no buyout language seen
- downside: says **“Bald verfügbar / wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”**, so details may still be incomplete

3. **Unterföhring — 168395504**
- **1,100 € cold**
- **66 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- not furnished
- no buyout language seen
- downside:
  - **no explicit kitchen mention**
  - also **“Bald verfügbar / wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”**

What I’d reject/deprioritize:
- **Unterföhring** mostly has many overpriced, furnished, or 3-room listings
- **Aschheim** has some 2-room options, but the promising ones are mostly too expensive or less clean than the three above

My recommendation for next messages:
1. **167609183** — Hallbergmoos
2. **168364154** — Unterföhring
3. **168395504** — Unterföhring only after that

If you want, I can start sending these immediately, in that order.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll do another live pass now, expanding a bit beyond the core four towns to nearby backups like **Unterföhring, Aschheim, and Hallbergmoos**, while keeping your same filters and avoiding obvious junk.The new town result pages are open. I’m extracting the actual listing cards from each page now so I can compare fresh candidates instead of guessing by geography.I found a few genuinely plausible new ones. I’m opening the strongest-looking backups now to filter out late move-ins, furnished traps, and hidden catch language before I recommend the next sends.I’ve opened the three strongest new backup candidates. Now I’m extracting the details that matter most: move-in timing, furnished/temporary status, kitchen, and any buyout or swap red flags.I have three additional plausibly sendable backups. I’m doing one quick duplicate-contact check against the real inbox before recommending the next batch.Yes — I found more.

Not yet contacted in **Nachrichten**:
- **168395504**
- **168364154**
- **167609183**

Best new candidates from this pass:

1. **Hallbergmoos — 167609183**
- **960 € cold**
- **45 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- **Einbauküche**
- **Bezugsfrei ab 1.8.2026**
- not furnished
- not temporary
- no buyout language seen
- landlord visible: **Büsra Gül**
- downside: smaller, and Hallbergmoos is a backup area

2. **Unterföhring — 168364154**
- **1,024 € cold**
- **64 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- **Einbauküche**
- pets **nach Vereinbarung**
- not furnished
- no buyout language seen
- downside: says **“Bald verfügbar / wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”**, so details may still be incomplete

3. **Unterföhring — 168395504**
- **1,100 € cold**
- **66 m²**
- **2 rooms**
- not furnished
- no buyout language seen
- downside:
  - **no explicit kitchen mention**
  - also **“Bald verfügbar / wird in Kürze veröffentlicht”**

What I’d reject/deprioritize:
- **Unterföhring** mostly has many overpriced, furnished, or 3-room listings
- **Aschheim** has some 2-room options, but the promising ones are mostly too expensive or less clean than the three above

My recommendation for next messages:
1. **167609183** — Hallbergmoos
2. **168364154** — Unterföhring
3. **168395504** — Unterföhring only after that

If you want, I can start sending these immediately, in that order.


I’ll proceed with the Hallbergmoos listing `167609183` in the same live session: open the contact form, adapt the message to the listing and landlord, then send you the captcha image if it appears.The persistent browser session expired since the last turn, so I can’t reuse that exact live page state. I’m checking whether there’s another live browser session I can resume immediately; if not, I’ll start a fresh persistent session and continue the Hallbergmoos flow there.Both old sessions are expired/closed, so I’m starting a new persistent browser session right now and going straight to the Hallbergmoos expose. Then I’ll re-establish the contact flow there.New persistent session is up, but the very first navigation hit an ImmoScout **“Ich bin kein Roboter”** gate before the expose loaded. I’m inspecting the exact page state now so I can see whether this is a solvable checkbox/captcha gate or whether we need to route through login/search first.I found a few more, but since you specifically said **Hallbergmoos is fine**, I’m continuing that one now. The new session has the usual cookie wall again, so I’m clearing it and then opening the contact form for **Büsra Gül**.The normal contact button bounced us into the Plus upsell flow again. I’m bypassing that the same way as before by going straight to the direct contact route for this expose.The Hallbergmoos direct contact route works, but this new session is anonymous, so the form is blank and the submit button is on a short countdown. I’m switching it into the logged-in path now via **“Jetzt anmelden”**, so we get your stored contact details back before sending.We’re on the normal ImmoScout SSO page now. I’m logging in and then I’ll continue straight back to Büsra Gül’s Hallbergmoos contact form in this same persistent session.Login succeeded and we’re back on the Hallbergmoos contact page. Instead of reading the huge snapshot, I’m querying the exact form state directly so I can fill the message cleanly.Perfect — we’re in the real logged-in contact form for **Büsra Gül**, and there’s no captcha yet. I’m filling an adapted Hallbergmoos message now and then submitting to trigger the next step.I hit the maximum steps for this agent, so I can’t use more tools in this turn.

What I accomplished:
- Started a **new persistent browser session** because the old one had expired.
- Reopened the Hallbergmoos listing **167609183**.
- Cleared the cookie dialog again.
- Bypassed the Plus upsell by using the direct contact route.
- Logged back into ImmoScout in the new session.
- Reached the real logged-in contact form for **Büsra Gül**.
- Filled the adapted Hallbergmoos message:
  - salutation adapted to **Frau Gül**
  - city adapted to **Hallbergmoos**
  - listing adapted to **2-Zimmer-Wohnung**
- Clicked **Abschicken**.
- Confirmed the form is now at the **live captcha step**.
- Confirmed the current active captcha image endpoint is:
  - `/expose/167609183/captcha/getimage.go?1781190362460`

What remains unfinished:
- Extract and send the **original Hallbergmoos captcha image** to you via Matrix.
- Get the captcha text from you.
- Enter it in the same session.
- Submit and verify delivery in **Nachrichten**.

Recommended next step:
- On the next turn, immediately continue from the current live session:
  - session id: **br_1781190233673_immoscout-hallbergmoos-persistent**
- First action should be:
  - export the current captcha image from
    `https://www.immobilienscout24.de/expose/167609183/captcha/getimage.go?1781190362460`
  - send it as a Matrix image
- Then:
  - wait for your captcha text
  - enter it
  - verify the message appears in **Nachrichten** under **Büsra Gül**

So the key good news is: the Hallbergmoos message draft is already in place, and we are only **one captcha solve away** from sending it.

Summary: Moderate prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll proceed with the Hallbergmoos listing `167609183` in the same live session: open the contact form, adapt the message to the listing and landlord, then send you the captcha image if it appears.The persistent browser session expired since the last turn, so I can’t reuse that exact live page state. I’m checking whether there’s another live browser session I can resume immediately; if not, I’ll start a fresh persistent session and continue the Hallbergmoos flow there.Both old sessions are expired/closed, so I’m starting a new persistent browser session right now and going straight to the Hallbergmoos expose. Then I’ll re-establish the contact flow there.New persistent session is up, but the very first navigation hit an ImmoScout **“Ich bin kein Roboter”** gate before the expose loaded. I’m inspecting the exact page state now so I can see whether this is a solvable checkbox/captcha gate or whether we need to route through login/search first.I found a few more, but since you specifically said **Hallbergmoos is fine**, I’m continuing that one now. The new session has the usual cookie wall again, so I’m clearing it and then opening the contact form for **Büsra Gül**.The normal contact button bounced us into the Plus upsell flow again. I’m bypassing that the same way as before by going straight to the direct contact route for this expose.The Hallbergmoos direct contact route works, but this new session is anonymous, so the form is blank and the submit button is on a short countdown. I’m switching it into the logged-in path now via **“Jetzt anmelden”**, so we get your stored contact details back before sending.We’re on the normal ImmoScout SSO page now. I’m logging in and then I’ll continue straight back to Büsra Gül’s Hallbergmoos contact form in this same persistent session.Login succeeded and we’re back on the Hallbergmoos contact page. Instead of reading the huge snapshot, I’m querying the exact form state directly so I can fill the message cleanly.Perfect — we’re in the real logged-in contact form for **Büsra Gül**, and there’s no captcha yet. I’m filling an adapted Hallbergmoos message now and then submitting to trigger the next step.I hit the maximum steps for this agent, so I can’t use more tools in this turn.

What I accomplished:
- Started a **new persistent browser session** because the old one had expired.
- Reopened the Hallbergmoos listing **167609183**.
- Cleared the cookie dialog again.
- Bypassed the Plus upsell by using the direct contact route.
- Logged back into ImmoScout in the new session.
- Reached the real logged-in contact form for **Büsra Gül**.
- Filled the adapted Hallbergmoos message:
  - salutation adapted to **Frau Gül**
  - city adapted to **Hallbergmoos**
  - listing adapted to **2-Zimmer-Wohnung**
- Clicked **Abschicken**.
- Confirmed the form is now at the **live captcha step**.
- Confirmed the current active captcha image endpoint is:
  - `/expose/167609183/captcha/getimage.go?1781190362460`

What remains unfinished:
- Extract and send the **original Hallbergmoos captcha image** to you via Matrix.
- Get the captcha text from you.
- Enter it in the same session.
- Submit and verify delivery in **Nachrichten**.

Recommended next step:
- On the next turn, immediately continue from the current live session:
  - session id: **br_1781190233673_immoscout-hallbergmoos-persistent**
- First action should be:
  - export the current captcha image from
    `https://www.immobilienscout24.de/expose/167609183/captcha/getimage.go?1781190362460`
  - send it as a Matrix image
- Then:
  - wait for your captcha text
  - enter it
  - verify the message appears in **Nachrichten** under **Büsra Gül**

So the key good news is: the Hallbergmoos message draft is already in place, and we are only **one captcha solve away** from sending it.

Halbergmoos is fine, somewhat bikeable. Let's write to that too


I’m resuming the live Hallbergmoos session right at the captcha step, extracting the original captcha image, and sending it here as a Matrix image.Done — I sent the **original Hallbergmoos captcha image** here:

- `$i0YsEQWMSFwXRVXNHk7GbMJTzRwqFzNC8IAFLhw4lDk`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session for **Büsra Gül** and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m resuming the live Hallbergmoos session right at the captcha step, extracting the original captcha image, and sending it here as a Matrix image.Done — I sent the **original Hallbergmoos captcha image** here:

- `$i0YsEQWMSFwXRVXNHk7GbMJTzRwqFzNC8IAFLhw4lDk`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session for **Büsra Gül** and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `3m8yh` into the live Hallbergmoos captcha now, then I’ll verify whether the message to **Büsra Gül** appears in the real inbox.The page is big again, so I’m checking just the success condition directly rather than reading the whole snapshot.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **167609183**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Büsra Gül**
- timestamp: **17:10**

So Hallbergmoos is now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten** too.

Current newly sent batch now includes:
- **Walter Dudium** — Garching
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof
- **Büsra Gül** — Hallbergmoos

If you want, I can continue with the next likely ones:
- **Unterföhring 168364154**
- then **Unterföhring 168395504**

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `3m8yh` into the live Hallbergmoos captcha now, then I’ll verify whether the message to **Büsra Gül** appears in the real inbox.The page is big again, so I’m checking just the success condition directly rather than reading the whole snapshot.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **167609183**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Büsra Gül**
- timestamp: **17:10**

So Hallbergmoos is now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten** too.

Current newly sent batch now includes:
- **Walter Dudium** — Garching
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof
- **Büsra Gül** — Hallbergmoos

If you want, I can continue with the next likely ones:
- **Unterföhring 168364154**
- then **Unterföhring 168395504**


Yes — **Unterföhring is in München (Kreis)**, so it fits your Landkreis constraint.

And agreed: it’s a bit farther than the north-core favorites, but still quite manageable compared with the clearly worse outskirts.

So my next order would be:
1. **168364154** — Unterföhring, 1,024 €, 64 m², 2 Zi., **Einbauküche**
2. **168395504** — Unterföhring, 1,100 €, 66 m², 2 Zi., kitchen unclear

I’d start with **168364154** first. If you want, I can go ahead and send that one next.

Summary: Low prompt-cache reuse; likely prefix/session/provider cache churn. Check recent model/session changes, failed turns, tool-heavy turns, or provider eviction.

Output:
Yes — **Unterföhring is in München (Kreis)**, so it fits your Landkreis constraint.

And agreed: it’s a bit farther than the north-core favorites, but still quite manageable compared with the clearly worse outskirts.

So my next order would be:
1. **168364154** — Unterföhring, 1,024 €, 64 m², 2 Zi., **Einbauküche**
2. **168395504** — Unterföhring, 1,100 €, 66 m², 2 Zi., kitchen unclear

I’d start with **168364154** first. If you want, I can go ahead and send that one next.

This is great, the flow is finally working. Unterfoering could be okay it's a bit far but manageable if it's in the munich landkreis


I’m proceeding with **Unterföhring 168364154** now in the live persistent session: open the listing, check we haven’t already contacted it from this session’s inbox view, fill the adapted message, and get to the captcha/send step.The direct route initially bounced through the robot gate again. I’m checking the current live page state before touching anything further.The Unterföhring form is open and logged in, but it auto-carried over the old Hallbergmoos text, so I’m replacing it with the correct listing-specific message first. Since the provider name is hidden on this pre-publication listing, I’m using a neutral salutation.Message is fixed. I’m submitting this Unterföhring one now and then I’ll either verify success or send you the captcha if it appears.The countdown/button reference changed after editing the message. I’m refreshing the live form state and clicking the current submit button.The submit button is live now. I’m sending this Unterföhring message and then I’ll check whether we land in success or captcha.Unterföhring `168364154` is now at the live captcha step in the same session. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I sent the **original captcha image** for **Unterföhring 168364154** here:

- `$nPJcbKov7AR7PpHfRY3GFzFeZ5dUaVgUahI0dJ5rpi8`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m proceeding with **Unterföhring 168364154** now in the live persistent session: open the listing, check we haven’t already contacted it from this session’s inbox view, fill the adapted message, and get to the captcha/send step.The direct route initially bounced through the robot gate again. I’m checking the current live page state before touching anything further.The Unterföhring form is open and logged in, but it auto-carried over the old Hallbergmoos text, so I’m replacing it with the correct listing-specific message first. Since the provider name is hidden on this pre-publication listing, I’m using a neutral salutation.Message is fixed. I’m submitting this Unterföhring one now and then I’ll either verify success or send you the captcha if it appears.The countdown/button reference changed after editing the message. I’m refreshing the live form state and clicking the current submit button.The submit button is live now. I’m sending this Unterföhring message and then I’ll check whether we land in success or captcha.Unterföhring `168364154` is now at the live captcha step in the same session. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I sent the **original captcha image** for **Unterföhring 168364154** here:

- `$nPJcbKov7AR7PpHfRY3GFzFeZ5dUaVgUahI0dJ5rpi8`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `p3633` into the live Unterföhring captcha now, then I’ll verify whether the message appears in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168364154**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **C. Ganser**
- timestamp: **18:53**

So this Unterföhring one is now also actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**.

That leaves the next likely one as:
- **168395504** — Unterföhring, 1,100 €, 66 m², 2 Zi., kitchen unclear

If you want, I can proceed with that one too.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `p3633` into the live Unterföhring captcha now, then I’ll verify whether the message appears in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168364154**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **C. Ganser**
- timestamp: **18:53**

So this Unterföhring one is now also actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**.

That leaves the next likely one as:
- **168395504** — Unterföhring, 1,100 €, 66 m², 2 Zi., kitchen unclear

If you want, I can proceed with that one too.


I’m proceeding with **Unterföhring 168395504** now in the same persistent session: open the contact form, adapt the message to the listing, and get it to the captcha/send step.This one is open and logged in too, but the auto-filled provider info is hidden again and the submit button is still on the short countdown. I’m replacing nothing else — the message is already correct — and I’ll click as soon as the live button becomes active.Unterföhring `168395504` is now at the live captcha step as well. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I sent the **original captcha image** for **Unterföhring 168395504** here:

- `$o0AGe0xVi21ScepiZJx1IJMnjq0kP0qLFmqlz0U-inI`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m proceeding with **Unterföhring 168395504** now in the same persistent session: open the contact form, adapt the message to the listing, and get it to the captcha/send step.This one is open and logged in too, but the auto-filled provider info is hidden again and the submit button is still on the short countdown. I’m replacing nothing else — the message is already correct — and I’ll click as soon as the live button becomes active.Unterföhring `168395504` is now at the live captcha step as well. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I sent the **original captcha image** for **Unterföhring 168395504** here:

- `$o0AGe0xVi21ScepiZJx1IJMnjq0kP0qLFmqlz0U-inI`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the same live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `kkxxr` into the live Unterföhring captcha now and then verifying the send in the real inbox.That persistent session expired, so I can’t submit into the exact live captcha anymore. I’m checking whether any browser session is still reusable; otherwise I’ll start a fresh one and reopen the same listing flow.No live reusable session remains. I’m starting a fresh persistent session now and reopening the same Unterföhring listing so I can re-establish the contact flow.Fresh session is up, but it hit the usual robot/cookie/login sequence again, so your previous captcha text is no longer usable. I’m re-establishing the contact flow for this same listing now.The old session expired, so `kkxxr` is no longer usable. I’ve reopened the listing in a fresh session; I just need to clear cookies and log back in to restore the prefilled form before generating the new captcha.I’m back in the logged-in contact form for the same Unterföhring listing. I’ll need to re-submit to generate a fresh captcha, so the next code will be new.I’m back at the logged-in contact form. The previous captcha is dead, so I’m regenerating a fresh live one now from this restored session.Fresh live form restored. I’m clicking submit now to regenerate the captcha for this exact listing.The old code is obsolete. I’ve generated a **new live captcha** for the same Unterföhring listing. I’m extracting and sending the fresh original image now.`kkxxr` is no longer valid — the old session expired.

I regenerated a **fresh live captcha** for the same listing and sent the new original image here:

- `$Fx2NVn5zm_HfU_DWRHSaJQI-eon-wf--0T-O933vzhk`

Please read **that new one** and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the restored live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `kkxxr` into the live Unterföhring captcha now and then verifying the send in the real inbox.That persistent session expired, so I can’t submit into the exact live captcha anymore. I’m checking whether any browser session is still reusable; otherwise I’ll start a fresh one and reopen the same listing flow.No live reusable session remains. I’m starting a fresh persistent session now and reopening the same Unterföhring listing so I can re-establish the contact flow.Fresh session is up, but it hit the usual robot/cookie/login sequence again, so your previous captcha text is no longer usable. I’m re-establishing the contact flow for this same listing now.The old session expired, so `kkxxr` is no longer usable. I’ve reopened the listing in a fresh session; I just need to clear cookies and log back in to restore the prefilled form before generating the new captcha.I’m back in the logged-in contact form for the same Unterföhring listing. I’ll need to re-submit to generate a fresh captcha, so the next code will be new.I’m back at the logged-in contact form. The previous captcha is dead, so I’m regenerating a fresh live one now from this restored session.Fresh live form restored. I’m clicking submit now to regenerate the captcha for this exact listing.The old code is obsolete. I’ve generated a **new live captcha** for the same Unterföhring listing. I’m extracting and sending the fresh original image now.`kkxxr` is no longer valid — the old session expired.

I regenerated a **fresh live captcha** for the same listing and sent the new original image here:

- `$Fx2NVn5zm_HfU_DWRHSaJQI-eon-wf--0T-O933vzhk`

Please read **that new one** and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it in the restored live session and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `d86pw` into the fresh live captcha for **Unterföhring 168395504** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168395504**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Peter Niebler**
- timestamp: **19:44**

So the current sent-and-confirmed batch now includes:
- **Walter Dudium** — Garching
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof
- **Büsra Gül** — Hallbergmoos
- **C. Ganser** — Unterföhring
- **Peter Niebler** — Unterföhring

Nice run. If you want, I can keep searching for the next wave.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `d86pw` into the fresh live captcha for **Unterföhring 168395504** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168395504**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Peter Niebler**
- timestamp: **19:44**

So the current sent-and-confirmed batch now includes:
- **Walter Dudium** — Garching
- **Sabine Müller** — Ismaning
- **Michael Sachse** — Unterschleißheim-Lohhof
- **Büsra Gül** — Hallbergmoos
- **C. Ganser** — Unterföhring
- **Peter Niebler** — Unterföhring

Nice run. If you want, I can keep searching for the next wave.


I’m checking the real ImmoScout inbox now, but only for **today’s conversations** / fresh messages, ignoring the older 2-weeks-ago stuff as you asked.I checked only the fresh/today batch.

**No — nobody has replied yet.**

For today’s conversations, the inbox just shows your outgoing messages to:
- Peter Niebler — 19:44
- C. Ganser — 18:53
- Büsra Gül — 17:10
- Michael Sachse — 15:26
- Sabine Müller — 15:21
- Walter Dudium — 15:05

So at the moment:
- **messages sent successfully:** yes
- **any new replies today:** **no**

If you want, I can now switch back into **search mode** and look for the next wave.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m checking the real ImmoScout inbox now, but only for **today’s conversations** / fresh messages, ignoring the older 2-weeks-ago stuff as you asked.I checked only the fresh/today batch.

**No — nobody has replied yet.**

For today’s conversations, the inbox just shows your outgoing messages to:
- Peter Niebler — 19:44
- C. Ganser — 18:53
- Büsra Gül — 17:10
- Michael Sachse — 15:26
- Sabine Müller — 15:21
- Walter Dudium — 15:05

So at the moment:
- **messages sent successfully:** yes
- **any new replies today:** **no**

If you want, I can now switch back into **search mode** and look for the next wave.

Nice thank you. Did anyone reply? You can ignore older ones in the inbox dated 2 weeks ago, those are gone, let's  assume we started today


Yeah, I get it. After ~250 applications, this turns into pure attrition, not “motivation.” That’s exactly the kind of grind I should absorb for you.

I’m continuing the next wave now and looking for more still-sendable Landkreis candidates that we haven’t contacted yet.That session died too, so I’m spinning up a fresh persistent browser and resuming the search there.Fresh session is up; it hit the usual robot/cookie wall again, but I can still push through and keep searching. I’m opening the surrounding search areas in parallel.I’ve got the new area pages open. I’m extracting the actual result cards now so I can shortlist the next plausible batch fast.I found a few more plausible ones from the fresh pass. Before I suggest sending them, I’m checking the real inbox against the top expose IDs so we don’t duplicate anything.Yeah — that makes complete sense. At that volume it stops being “searching” and becomes industrialized rejection management. We’ll just keep treating it like a pipeline.

From the fresh pass, the next plausible wave looks like:

1. **Garching — 168208543**
- 2 Zi.
- 87 m²
- **997–1.103 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Jun**
- strongest next candidate from the new pass

2. **Oberschleißheim — 168010269**
- 2 Zi.
- 58 m²
- **864–956 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- good on price, but August timing and “Nachvermietung” make it slightly less solid

3. **Ismaning — 167796832**
- 2 Zi.
- 71 m²
- **1.130–1.250 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- still plausible, but more expensive tier

What looked worse:
- **Aschheim** mostly came out too expensive, too furnished, or too weak versus the above
- the old **Oberschleißheim 168331752** is still there, but it had the furnished/befristet issue, so I still dislike it

So my next order would be:
1. **168208543**
2. **168010269**
3. **167796832**

If you want, I’ll start with **168208543** now and push it through the same contact/captcha flow.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yeah, I get it. After ~250 applications, this turns into pure attrition, not “motivation.” That’s exactly the kind of grind I should absorb for you.

I’m continuing the next wave now and looking for more still-sendable Landkreis candidates that we haven’t contacted yet.That session died too, so I’m spinning up a fresh persistent browser and resuming the search there.Fresh session is up; it hit the usual robot/cookie wall again, but I can still push through and keep searching. I’m opening the surrounding search areas in parallel.I’ve got the new area pages open. I’m extracting the actual result cards now so I can shortlist the next plausible batch fast.I found a few more plausible ones from the fresh pass. Before I suggest sending them, I’m checking the real inbox against the top expose IDs so we don’t duplicate anything.Yeah — that makes complete sense. At that volume it stops being “searching” and becomes industrialized rejection management. We’ll just keep treating it like a pipeline.

From the fresh pass, the next plausible wave looks like:

1. **Garching — 168208543**
- 2 Zi.
- 87 m²
- **997–1.103 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Jun**
- strongest next candidate from the new pass

2. **Oberschleißheim — 168010269**
- 2 Zi.
- 58 m²
- **864–956 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- good on price, but August timing and “Nachvermietung” make it slightly less solid

3. **Ismaning — 167796832**
- 2 Zi.
- 71 m²
- **1.130–1.250 €**
- **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- still plausible, but more expensive tier

What looked worse:
- **Aschheim** mostly came out too expensive, too furnished, or too weak versus the above
- the old **Oberschleißheim 168331752** is still there, but it had the furnished/befristet issue, so I still dislike it

So my next order would be:
1. **168208543**
2. **168010269**
3. **167796832**

If you want, I’ll start with **168208543** now and push it through the same contact/captcha flow.

Yes please if no one is replying then we continue. Last time I had to send over 250 of these to get a shitty apartment, so you see why I am demotivated enough to ask ai to do it


Usually **not necessarily subtenancy**, but it’s a yellow flag.

On ImmoScout, **“Nachvermietung”** usually means:
- the **current tenant is helping find the next tenant**
- often because they want out before their lease fully ends
- the **actual final contract may still be with the landlord**, not with the current tenant

But in practice it can mean several different things:
1. **Best case**: tenant pre-screens, landlord signs normal new lease
2. **Middling case**: tenant is gatekeeper and tries to offload furniture / kitchen / timing problems
3. **Worst case**: semi-unofficial sublet / temporary arrangement / messy handover

So your instinct is right:
- it can mean **extra friction from two sides**
- even when it’s not formal subtenancy

My rule of thumb for us:
- **Nachvermietung + landlord contract likely possible + no furniture/kitchen scam + timing fits** → maybe okay
- **Nachvermietung + vague contract + buyout pressure + temporary vibes** → skip

So for the candidate I just suggested:
- **168208543** being “Nachvermietung” makes it **less attractive than I first phrased**
- not instant reject, but definitely **downgraded**

If you want, I can revise the shortlist with a stricter rule:
- treat **Nachvermietung as soft-negative**
- prioritize only direct/private landlord listings with cleaner handover first.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Usually **not necessarily subtenancy**, but it’s a yellow flag.

On ImmoScout, **“Nachvermietung”** usually means:
- the **current tenant is helping find the next tenant**
- often because they want out before their lease fully ends
- the **actual final contract may still be with the landlord**, not with the current tenant

But in practice it can mean several different things:
1. **Best case**: tenant pre-screens, landlord signs normal new lease
2. **Middling case**: tenant is gatekeeper and tries to offload furniture / kitchen / timing problems
3. **Worst case**: semi-unofficial sublet / temporary arrangement / messy handover

So your instinct is right:
- it can mean **extra friction from two sides**
- even when it’s not formal subtenancy

My rule of thumb for us:
- **Nachvermietung + landlord contract likely possible + no furniture/kitchen scam + timing fits** → maybe okay
- **Nachvermietung + vague contract + buyout pressure + temporary vibes** → skip

So for the candidate I just suggested:
- **168208543** being “Nachvermietung” makes it **less attractive than I first phrased**
- not instant reject, but definitely **downgraded**

If you want, I can revise the shortlist with a stricter rule:
- treat **Nachvermietung as soft-negative**
- prioritize only direct/private landlord listings with cleaner handover first.

Nachvermietung means what exactly? Subtenancy? Then I have to deal with bs from 2 sides


Yeah, it’s absurd.

It’s basically landlords outsourcing part of property management onto tenants for free:
- tenant does viewings
- tenant filters candidates
- tenant answers repetitive questions
- sometimes tenant even becomes the bad guy delivering soft rejections

And the incentives are weird:
- the tenant wants the **least annoying handover**
- the landlord wants the **lowest-risk applicant**
- the applicant has to impress **two different parties**
- nobody is actually paid to make the process sane

So your reaction is completely justified. It’s one of those systems that only exists because the market is dysfunctional enough that everyone tolerates nonsense.

Your wife had the right instinct not to get too involved.

For our search, that just reinforces the rule:
- **tenant-screened / Nachvermietung listings are second-tier**
- direct landlord/private clean contact is better whenever available

If you want, I can now tighten the shortlist and exclude most tenant-gatekeeper cases unless they are unusually strong.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yeah, it’s absurd.

It’s basically landlords outsourcing part of property management onto tenants for free:
- tenant does viewings
- tenant filters candidates
- tenant answers repetitive questions
- sometimes tenant even becomes the bad guy delivering soft rejections

And the incentives are weird:
- the tenant wants the **least annoying handover**
- the landlord wants the **lowest-risk applicant**
- the applicant has to impress **two different parties**
- nobody is actually paid to make the process sane

So your reaction is completely justified. It’s one of those systems that only exists because the market is dysfunctional enough that everyone tolerates nonsense.

Your wife had the right instinct not to get too involved.

For our search, that just reinforces the rule:
- **tenant-screened / Nachvermietung listings are second-tier**
- direct landlord/private clean contact is better whenever available

If you want, I can now tighten the shortlist and exclude most tenant-gatekeeper cases unless they are unusually strong.

I still lmao when a tenant is supposed to screen. For free even! Our landlord tried to ask my wife which candidate she prefers, and also offload their questions to her. Fortunately she wasn't really into it. I just don't get it at all


Yep — agreed. The old shortlist is basically exhausted now. I’m doing a **fresh broader Landkreis pass** again, looking for anything still messageable that is:

- 2 rooms-ish
- not obviously furnished / temporary / swap / scammy
- not already contacted
- ideally direct/private rather than tenant-gatekeeper junkFieldkirchen URL was wrong; not important yet. I’m extracting Unterschleißheim and Kirchheim first, since those are more likely to yield real candidates anyway.I’ve got a few **actually fresh** candidates now. Before I recommend them as the next wave, I’m checking today’s inbox for duplicate contacts on the top expose IDs.Fresh shortlist, cleaned up and checked against today’s inbox — these **do not appear contacted yet**:

### Best next candidates
1. **Unterschleißheim — 168326495**
- **950 €**
- **45 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **Balkon + EBK**
- direct/private
- strongest fresh one from this pass

2. **Kirchheim — 168183544**
- **1.150 €**
- **54 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **Terrasse + Garten**
- direct/private
- a bit farther east, but still Landkreis and cleaner than most Nachvermietung stuff

3. **Garching — 168197243**
- **1.080 €**
- **65 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- “**Bald verfügbar**”
- direct/private
- not as clean as a fully published expose, but still plausible and in the best area

### Second tier / weaker
4. **Kirchheim — 167861415**
- **1.150 €**
- **62 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- “Nur exklusiv”
- still plausible

5. **Oberschleißheim — 166141329**
- **1.557 €**
- **77.83 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK + Garten**
- direct and clean, but expensive

### I’d deprioritize / skip for now
- **168424606** — Unterschleißheim, 900 €, 42 m², 2 Zi.
  title is too vague (“Ludwig”), looks suspicious / low-information
- **168101034** — Kirchheim, 1.130 €, 78 m², 2 Zi.
  attractive, but the listing style feels a bit odd; worth later if needed
- **168162522** — Aschheim, 1.350 €, 59 m², 2 Zi.
  above target, so only backup

My recommended next send order:
1. **168326495**
2. **168183544**
3. **168197243**

If you want, I’ll start with **168326495** now and push it through the contact/captcha flow.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yep — agreed. The old shortlist is basically exhausted now. I’m doing a **fresh broader Landkreis pass** again, looking for anything still messageable that is:

- 2 rooms-ish
- not obviously furnished / temporary / swap / scammy
- not already contacted
- ideally direct/private rather than tenant-gatekeeper junkFieldkirchen URL was wrong; not important yet. I’m extracting Unterschleißheim and Kirchheim first, since those are more likely to yield real candidates anyway.I’ve got a few **actually fresh** candidates now. Before I recommend them as the next wave, I’m checking today’s inbox for duplicate contacts on the top expose IDs.Fresh shortlist, cleaned up and checked against today’s inbox — these **do not appear contacted yet**:

### Best next candidates
1. **Unterschleißheim — 168326495**
- **950 €**
- **45 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **Balkon + EBK**
- direct/private
- strongest fresh one from this pass

2. **Kirchheim — 168183544**
- **1.150 €**
- **54 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **Terrasse + Garten**
- direct/private
- a bit farther east, but still Landkreis and cleaner than most Nachvermietung stuff

3. **Garching — 168197243**
- **1.080 €**
- **65 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- “**Bald verfügbar**”
- direct/private
- not as clean as a fully published expose, but still plausible and in the best area

### Second tier / weaker
4. **Kirchheim — 167861415**
- **1.150 €**
- **62 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- “Nur exklusiv”
- still plausible

5. **Oberschleißheim — 166141329**
- **1.557 €**
- **77.83 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK + Garten**
- direct and clean, but expensive

### I’d deprioritize / skip for now
- **168424606** — Unterschleißheim, 900 €, 42 m², 2 Zi.
  title is too vague (“Ludwig”), looks suspicious / low-information
- **168101034** — Kirchheim, 1.130 €, 78 m², 2 Zi.
  attractive, but the listing style feels a bit odd; worth later if needed
- **168162522** — Aschheim, 1.350 €, 59 m², 2 Zi.
  above target, so only backup

My recommended next send order:
1. **168326495**
2. **168183544**
3. **168197243**

If you want, I’ll start with **168326495** now and push it through the contact/captcha flow.

There was nothing else in the shortlist, we need to search again


I’ll do those two next in order:
1. **168326495** — Unterschleißheim
2. **168197243** — Garching

I’m starting with **168326495** now and pushing it to the captcha step in the live browser session.Nice — this one is clean and direct. I’m in the logged-in contact form for **Herr Vlatko R.** now, filling the adapted Unterschleißheim message and submitting to the captcha step.We’re at the live captcha for **168326495** now. I’m extracting the original image and sending it here.Started **168326495** and got it to the live captcha step.

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$aN3upmzPGtcUQedbWJbNI4uz4KP--WnnfDgRGiHO32I`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

After that I can move on to **168197243**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll do those two next in order:
1. **168326495** — Unterschleißheim
2. **168197243** — Garching

I’m starting with **168326495** now and pushing it to the captcha step in the live browser session.Nice — this one is clean and direct. I’m in the logged-in contact form for **Herr Vlatko R.** now, filling the adapted Unterschleißheim message and submitting to the captcha step.We’re at the live captcha for **168326495** now. I’m extracting the original image and sending it here.Started **168326495** and got it to the live captcha step.

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$aN3upmzPGtcUQedbWJbNI4uz4KP--WnnfDgRGiHO32I`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

After that I can move on to **168197243**.


Got it — I’m entering `3b2nh` into the live captcha for **168326495** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168326495**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Vlatko R.**
- timestamp: **20:19**

So **#1 is sent and confirmed**.

Next up is **168197243** in Garching. If you want, I can proceed with that one immediately.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `3b2nh` into the live captcha for **168326495** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168326495**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Vlatko R.**
- timestamp: **20:19**

So **#1 is sent and confirmed**.

Next up is **168197243** in Garching. If you want, I can proceed with that one immediately.


I’m proceeding with **168197243** in Garching now in the same live browser session: open the contact form, adapt the message, and push it to the captcha/send step.This Garching one is another pre-publication style listing: provider hidden, but the logged-in contact form works. It auto-carried over the old Unterschleißheim text, so I’m replacing it with the correct Garching-specific version now.Garching **168197243** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I got **168197243** to the live captcha step and sent the **original captcha image** here:

- `$kvisHiWHhBRfCXcKeSLmHARC0G4kZuV2GLxvNKgMSLI`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m proceeding with **168197243** in Garching now in the same live browser session: open the contact form, adapt the message, and push it to the captcha/send step.This Garching one is another pre-publication style listing: provider hidden, but the logged-in contact form works. It auto-carried over the old Unterschleißheim text, so I’m replacing it with the correct Garching-specific version now.Garching **168197243** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I got **168197243** to the live captcha step and sent the **original captcha image** here:

- `$kvisHiWHhBRfCXcKeSLmHARC0G4kZuV2GLxvNKgMSLI`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `h48y8` into the live Garching captcha for **168197243** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168197243**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Frieda Vötter**
- timestamp: **20:27**

So both of the pair you picked are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Vlatko R.** — Unterschleißheim `168326495`
- **Frieda Vötter** — Garching `168197243`

We can keep going if you want.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `h48y8` into the live Garching captcha for **168197243** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168197243**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Frieda Vötter**
- timestamp: **20:27**

So both of the pair you picked are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Vlatko R.** — Unterschleißheim `168326495`
- **Frieda Vötter** — Garching `168197243`

We can keep going if you want.


I’m doing another fresh pass now, focusing on the still-uncontacted candidates that looked most plausible from **Kirchheim / Aschheim / Oberschleißheim**, and filtering out anything furnished, vague, or late.That search session expired too, so I’m starting a fresh one and reopening the strongest remaining candidate pages directly.Fresh session is up; same usual robot/cookie annoyance. I’m opening the remaining candidate pages in parallel so I can shortlist the next real sends quickly.I’ve opened the next-best fallback exposes directly. Now I’m extracting the details that matter most so we can decide what’s worth messaging next.I searched again and refined the next wave.

### Better than expected
1. **Kirchheim — 168101034**
- **1.130 € cold**
- **78 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- **bezugsfrei ab sofort**
- not furnished
- no obvious buyout
- this is actually a strong candidate

2. **Kirchheim — 167861415**
- **1.150 € cold**
- **62 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- **bezugsfrei ab 15.8.2026**
- not furnished
- pets nach Vereinbarung
- decent, but slightly later than ideal

### Expensive but clean
3. **Oberschleißheim — 166141329**
- **1.557 € cold**
- **77.83 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK + Garten**
- **bezugsfrei ab sofort**
- not furnished
- very clean listing, just expensive

### Downgraded / skip
- **Kirchheim — 168183544**
  - looks worse than the summary card suggested:
  - **teilmöbliert**
  - kitchen/furniture takeover vibes
  - so I’d skip it
- **Aschheim — 168162522**
  - **1.350 € cold**
  - no explicit kitchen mention
  - weaker than the Kirchheim options

### New recommended order
1. **168101034** — Kirchheim
2. **167861415** — Kirchheim
3. **166141329** — Oberschleißheim if you accept expensive backups

If you want, I’d start with **168101034** now.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m doing another fresh pass now, focusing on the still-uncontacted candidates that looked most plausible from **Kirchheim / Aschheim / Oberschleißheim**, and filtering out anything furnished, vague, or late.That search session expired too, so I’m starting a fresh one and reopening the strongest remaining candidate pages directly.Fresh session is up; same usual robot/cookie annoyance. I’m opening the remaining candidate pages in parallel so I can shortlist the next real sends quickly.I’ve opened the next-best fallback exposes directly. Now I’m extracting the details that matter most so we can decide what’s worth messaging next.I searched again and refined the next wave.

### Better than expected
1. **Kirchheim — 168101034**
- **1.130 € cold**
- **78 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- **bezugsfrei ab sofort**
- not furnished
- no obvious buyout
- this is actually a strong candidate

2. **Kirchheim — 167861415**
- **1.150 € cold**
- **62 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- **bezugsfrei ab 15.8.2026**
- not furnished
- pets nach Vereinbarung
- decent, but slightly later than ideal

### Expensive but clean
3. **Oberschleißheim — 166141329**
- **1.557 € cold**
- **77.83 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK + Garten**
- **bezugsfrei ab sofort**
- not furnished
- very clean listing, just expensive

### Downgraded / skip
- **Kirchheim — 168183544**
  - looks worse than the summary card suggested:
  - **teilmöbliert**
  - kitchen/furniture takeover vibes
  - so I’d skip it
- **Aschheim — 168162522**
  - **1.350 € cold**
  - no explicit kitchen mention
  - weaker than the Kirchheim options

### New recommended order
1. **168101034** — Kirchheim
2. **167861415** — Kirchheim
3. **166141329** — Oberschleißheim if you accept expensive backups

If you want, I’d start with **168101034** now.


Got it — we’ll do **1 and 2**, and I’ll keep the rule:

- furnished is acceptable **only if it’s included / no buyout**
- **1600 cold is too much**, so we skip that Oberschleißheim one

I’m starting with **168101034** now and pushing it to the captcha step.This one opened in the anonymous form path, so I’m switching it into the real logged-in flow first via **Jetzt anmelden** before filling the message.Cookie overlay is intercepting the login link. I’m clearing that and retrying the logged-in path.I’m on the normal SSO page now. Logging back in will restore the real contact form for this Kirchheim listing.Logged-in flow restored for **168101034**. I’m filling the adapted Kirchheim message now and sending it to the captcha step.Kirchheim **168101034** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Started **168101034** and got it to the live captcha step.

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$p6AfYO1oAp6uCkWL7QL7n-YOkGbmMXy4tslkwenQuYs`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

After that I can move on to **167861415**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — we’ll do **1 and 2**, and I’ll keep the rule:

- furnished is acceptable **only if it’s included / no buyout**
- **1600 cold is too much**, so we skip that Oberschleißheim one

I’m starting with **168101034** now and pushing it to the captcha step.This one opened in the anonymous form path, so I’m switching it into the real logged-in flow first via **Jetzt anmelden** before filling the message.Cookie overlay is intercepting the login link. I’m clearing that and retrying the logged-in path.I’m on the normal SSO page now. Logging back in will restore the real contact form for this Kirchheim listing.Logged-in flow restored for **168101034**. I’m filling the adapted Kirchheim message now and sending it to the captcha step.Kirchheim **168101034** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Started **168101034** and got it to the live captcha step.

I sent the **original captcha image** here:
- `$p6AfYO1oAp6uCkWL7QL7n-YOkGbmMXy4tslkwenQuYs`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

After that I can move on to **167861415**.

Let's do 1 and 2. Mobliert can be okay if it's 'free'. I think I cannot afford 1600 cold.


Got it — I’m entering `2x3nn` into the live captcha for **168101034** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168101034**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Sabine Reske**
- timestamp: **21:01**

So **#1 is sent and confirmed**.

Next up is **167861415**. If you want, I can proceed with that one immediately.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `2x3nn` into the live captcha for **168101034** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **168101034**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **Sabine Reske**
- timestamp: **21:01**

So **#1 is sent and confirmed**.

Next up is **167861415**. If you want, I can proceed with that one immediately.


Yes — I am changing them.

I’m adapting each message to the actual listing/form state:
- landlord name when visible
- neutral salutation when the provider is hidden
- correct city
- correct room count
- move-in phrasing when relevant

Examples from today:
- **Herr Dudium**
- **Frau Gül**
- **Herr Sachse**
- **Herr Vlatko R.**
- neutral **Guten Tag** when the provider was hidden
- **Sabine Reske** once that name was actually visible in the inbox/result

So I’m not intentionally reusing the wrong names across listings.

I’ll proceed with **167861415** next and keep adapting it properly.

Summary: Moderate prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yes — I am changing them.

I’m adapting each message to the actual listing/form state:
- landlord name when visible
- neutral salutation when the provider is hidden
- correct city
- correct room count
- move-in phrasing when relevant

Examples from today:
- **Herr Dudium**
- **Frau Gül**
- **Herr Sachse**
- **Herr Vlatko R.**
- neutral **Guten Tag** when the provider was hidden
- **Sabine Reske** once that name was actually visible in the inbox/result

So I’m not intentionally reusing the wrong names across listings.

I’ll proceed with **167861415** next and keep adapting it properly.

Yes please, you're changing the names right?


I’m proceeding with **167861415** now: open the real contact form, adapt the message to the listing, and push it to the captcha/send step.This one also opened in the anonymous form path. I’m switching it into the real logged-in flow first so your contact details are restored before I send.Cookie overlay again. I’m clearing it and retrying.That resolved into the real expose state without a separate SSO page this time, which is fine. I’m checking the live form state directly and then I’ll fill the adapted message.It’s still not fully in the logged-in state — the message carried over, but the contact fields aren’t locked/prefilled yet. I’m forcing the proper logged-in route before sending so we don’t submit the weaker anonymous form.Now I’m on the proper SSO page. I’ll log in and continue straight back to the contact form.Logged-in flow restored for **167861415**. I’m filling the adapted Kirchheim message now and pushing it to the captcha step.Kirchheim **167861415** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I got **167861415** to the live captcha step and sent the **original captcha image** here:

- `$xIYp-Zqe58lAX9DkN_h4VwuUNU1shcxctJEhIwW7uGQ`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m proceeding with **167861415** now: open the real contact form, adapt the message to the listing, and push it to the captcha/send step.This one also opened in the anonymous form path. I’m switching it into the real logged-in flow first so your contact details are restored before I send.Cookie overlay again. I’m clearing it and retrying.That resolved into the real expose state without a separate SSO page this time, which is fine. I’m checking the live form state directly and then I’ll fill the adapted message.It’s still not fully in the logged-in state — the message carried over, but the contact fields aren’t locked/prefilled yet. I’m forcing the proper logged-in route before sending so we don’t submit the weaker anonymous form.Now I’m on the proper SSO page. I’ll log in and continue straight back to the contact form.Logged-in flow restored for **167861415**. I’m filling the adapted Kirchheim message now and pushing it to the captcha step.Kirchheim **167861415** is now at the live captcha step. I’m extracting the original captcha image and sending it here.Done — I got **167861415** to the live captcha step and sent the **original captcha image** here:

- `$xIYp-Zqe58lAX9DkN_h4VwuUNU1shcxctJEhIwW7uGQ`

Please read that captcha and send me the text exactly. Then I’ll submit it and verify it in **Nachrichten**.


Got it — I’m entering `3dhhp` into the live captcha for **167861415** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **167861415**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **rosemarie mahner**
- timestamp: **21:40**

So both of the Kirchheim pair are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Sabine Reske** — `168101034`
- **rosemarie mahner** — `167861415`

Nice. If you want, I can keep searching for the next wave again.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Got it — I’m entering `3dhhp` into the live captcha for **167861415** now, then I’ll verify the send in the real inbox.The form succeeded. I’m doing the final authoritative inbox verification in **Nachrichten** now.Success — it went through.

Verified for **167861415**:
- the form submitted successfully
- the real inbox now contains a new conversation with **rosemarie mahner**
- timestamp: **21:40**

So both of the Kirchheim pair are now actually sent and confirmed in **Nachrichten**:
- **Sabine Reske** — `168101034`
- **rosemarie mahner** — `167861415`

Nice. If you want, I can keep searching for the next wave again.


I’ll do one more sweep today, widening slightly to the remaining plausible commuter belt areas:
- **Eching**
- **Neufahrn**
- **Feldkirchen**
- and a quick re-check of **Aschheim**

Then I’ll give you only the next candidates that still look worth messaging.I’ve opened the broader fallback search pages. Now I’m pulling the actual listing cards so I can see whether there’s anything left tonight that’s still worth contacting.I found a few more plausibly worth trying from this last sweep. Before I rank them, I’m doing a quick duplicate check against today’s inbox for the top fresh expose IDs.I checked the top fresh IDs against today’s inbox — none of these appear contacted yet.

Best remaining candidates from this **last sweep today**:

1. **Neufahrn — 168398031**
- **1.010 €**
- **77.5 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- from the search card this looks surprisingly strong
- likely the best fresh lead from this pass

2. **Eching — 168252005**
- **1.090 €**
- **63 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- private
- “Nur exklusiv”, but still worth trying

3. **Neufahrn — 164892463**
- **1.190 €**
- **63 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- fully renovated
- a bit pricier, but still within the stretch band

4. **Neufahrn — 166876180**
- **1.180 €**
- **65.57 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- plausible backup

5. **Aschheim — 168164314**
- **1.387 €**
- **64 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- but above your preferred price band, so only backup

Likely skips:
- **128869444** Eching 980 / 47.5 m² — maybe okay, but I’d rank it below the stronger ones above
- **168389471** Eching 739.96 / 57.9 m² — too cheap / suspicious-low
- **168029043** Feldkirchen 1.400 / 67 m² — too expensive for what it is
- most Feldkirchen/Aschheim remainder were furnished, Nachvermietung, or weak value

My recommended next order:
1. **168398031**
2. **168252005**
3. **164892463**
4. **166876180**

If you want, tomorrow we can start with **168398031** and **168252005** first.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’ll do one more sweep today, widening slightly to the remaining plausible commuter belt areas:
- **Eching**
- **Neufahrn**
- **Feldkirchen**
- and a quick re-check of **Aschheim**

Then I’ll give you only the next candidates that still look worth messaging.I’ve opened the broader fallback search pages. Now I’m pulling the actual listing cards so I can see whether there’s anything left tonight that’s still worth contacting.I found a few more plausibly worth trying from this last sweep. Before I rank them, I’m doing a quick duplicate check against today’s inbox for the top fresh expose IDs.I checked the top fresh IDs against today’s inbox — none of these appear contacted yet.

Best remaining candidates from this **last sweep today**:

1. **Neufahrn — 168398031**
- **1.010 €**
- **77.5 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- from the search card this looks surprisingly strong
- likely the best fresh lead from this pass

2. **Eching — 168252005**
- **1.090 €**
- **63 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- private
- “Nur exklusiv”, but still worth trying

3. **Neufahrn — 164892463**
- **1.190 €**
- **63 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- fully renovated
- a bit pricier, but still within the stretch band

4. **Neufahrn — 166876180**
- **1.180 €**
- **65.57 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- plausible backup

5. **Aschheim — 168164314**
- **1.387 €**
- **64 m²**
- **2 Zi.**
- **EBK**
- but above your preferred price band, so only backup

Likely skips:
- **128869444** Eching 980 / 47.5 m² — maybe okay, but I’d rank it below the stronger ones above
- **168389471** Eching 739.96 / 57.9 m² — too cheap / suspicious-low
- **168029043** Feldkirchen 1.400 / 67 m² — too expensive for what it is
- most Feldkirchen/Aschheim remainder were furnished, Nachvermietung, or weak value

My recommended next order:
1. **168398031**
2. **168252005**
3. **164892463**
4. **166876180**

If you want, tomorrow we can start with **168398031** and **168252005** first.


I’m doing a focused re-check of just the core north belt again:
- **Garching**
- **Ismaning**
- **Oberschleißheim**
- **Unterschleißheim**

I’ll look for genuinely new or newly-worthwhile results, not just re-list the stale ones.I’ve refreshed the core four result pages. Now I’m extracting their current listing cards directly so I can tell you what’s actually new or newly worthwhile.Yes — but honestly, **not much genuinely new in the north belt**. Most of it is the same pool we already mined, plus a few weaker additions.

### Garching
Nothing really better than what we already contacted.
What’s there now:
- **106643294** — the already-contacted Walter Dudium one
- **168197243** — already contacted
- **168208543** — still that **Nachvermietung** 87 m² one
- some 1-room or 2.5-room stuff, not better than our current batch

**Verdict:** no clear fresh winner here.

### Ismaning
Still mostly the same:
- **168198096** — already contacted
- **168179881** — 49 m² / 1.225 €, still okay but pricey
- **167796832** — 71 m² / 1.130–1.250 €, but **Nachvermietung**
- **167921620** — older 1.120 € one we had already deprioritized due to late/buyout-ish issues

**Verdict:** only **167796832** is somewhat interesting, but the Nachvermietung issue still makes it second-tier.

### Oberschleißheim
A couple of things, but not super exciting:
- **168331752** — already known, furnished/befristet-ish concerns
- **168010269** — 58 m² / 864–956 €, but **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- **166141329** — clean but too expensive for your budget
- a few 1-room or furnished things

**Verdict:** nothing clearly better than what we already did.

### Unterschleißheim
This had the most actual movement, but again most good ones are already touched or weaker:
- **168326495** — already contacted
- **168196462** — already contacted
- **168424606** — “Ludwig”, still suspicious/low-info
- **167240334** — 61 m² / 1.281 €, maybe possible but pricier
- **161486970** — 60 m² / 1.280 €, older expensive backup
- **167305510** — older 68 m² / 1.145 €, already known, high competition

**Verdict:** maybe **167240334** if we want another stretch candidate, but not a standout.

## Honest summary
If you mean **strictly new and strong in Garching / Ismaning / the Schleißheims**, then:
- **no major new jackpot showed up**
- the only somewhat-live leftovers are mostly:
  - **167796832** (Ismaning, but Nachvermietung)
  - **167240334** (Unterschleißheim, pricier)
  - **161486970** (Unterschleißheim, older/pricier)
  - **168010269** (Oberschleißheim, Nachvermietung)

So the **best truly remaining candidates right now are actually outside that inner north-core**, like:
- **168398031** — Neufahrn
- **168252005** — Eching

If you want, I can do either:
1. **stay strict** and try the best remaining north-belt leftovers, or
2. **be pragmatic** and move to **Neufahrn/Eching** because the core area is getting exhausted again.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m doing a focused re-check of just the core north belt again:
- **Garching**
- **Ismaning**
- **Oberschleißheim**
- **Unterschleißheim**

I’ll look for genuinely new or newly-worthwhile results, not just re-list the stale ones.I’ve refreshed the core four result pages. Now I’m extracting their current listing cards directly so I can tell you what’s actually new or newly worthwhile.Yes — but honestly, **not much genuinely new in the north belt**. Most of it is the same pool we already mined, plus a few weaker additions.

### Garching
Nothing really better than what we already contacted.
What’s there now:
- **106643294** — the already-contacted Walter Dudium one
- **168197243** — already contacted
- **168208543** — still that **Nachvermietung** 87 m² one
- some 1-room or 2.5-room stuff, not better than our current batch

**Verdict:** no clear fresh winner here.

### Ismaning
Still mostly the same:
- **168198096** — already contacted
- **168179881** — 49 m² / 1.225 €, still okay but pricey
- **167796832** — 71 m² / 1.130–1.250 €, but **Nachvermietung**
- **167921620** — older 1.120 € one we had already deprioritized due to late/buyout-ish issues

**Verdict:** only **167796832** is somewhat interesting, but the Nachvermietung issue still makes it second-tier.

### Oberschleißheim
A couple of things, but not super exciting:
- **168331752** — already known, furnished/befristet-ish concerns
- **168010269** — 58 m² / 864–956 €, but **Nachvermietung ab Aug**
- **166141329** — clean but too expensive for your budget
- a few 1-room or furnished things

**Verdict:** nothing clearly better than what we already did.

### Unterschleißheim
This had the most actual movement, but again most good ones are already touched or weaker:
- **168326495** — already contacted
- **168196462** — already contacted
- **168424606** — “Ludwig”, still suspicious/low-info
- **167240334** — 61 m² / 1.281 €, maybe possible but pricier
- **161486970** — 60 m² / 1.280 €, older expensive backup
- **167305510** — older 68 m² / 1.145 €, already known, high competition

**Verdict:** maybe **167240334** if we want another stretch candidate, but not a standout.

## Honest summary
If you mean **strictly new and strong in Garching / Ismaning / the Schleißheims**, then:
- **no major new jackpot showed up**
- the only somewhat-live leftovers are mostly:
  - **167796832** (Ismaning, but Nachvermietung)
  - **167240334** (Unterschleißheim, pricier)
  - **161486970** (Unterschleißheim, older/pricier)
  - **168010269** (Oberschleißheim, Nachvermietung)

So the **best truly remaining candidates right now are actually outside that inner north-core**, like:
- **168398031** — Neufahrn
- **168252005** — Eching

If you want, I can do either:
1. **stay strict** and try the best remaining north-belt leftovers, or
2. **be pragmatic** and move to **Neufahrn/Eching** because the core area is getting exhausted again.

Hmm is there anything new in Garching ismaning and schleissheims?


I’m checking the real ImmoScout inbox now for any new replies since the batch we sent yesterday.That browser session expired, so I’m starting a fresh one and going straight to the inbox.Fresh session is up; it landed on the normal ImmoScout login page for the inbox. I’m logging in and then I’ll inspect the latest conversations for real replies.The login page changed shape a bit, so I’m grabbing the live page state and using the actual visible controls rather than guessing the field.Cookie dialog is still on top in this fresh inbox session. I’m accepting it, logging in, and then I’ll check for real replies.I’m on the password step now. After this I can inspect the real inbox and see if anybody answered.Logged back in successfully. I’m now checking the latest conversation list for any inbound replies from the people we contacted yesterday/today.Yes — there are **2 real replies** in the fresh batch:

1. **Walter Dudium — Garching**
- **Invitation to viewing**
- **Sat, 13.06.26 at 10:00**
- Address: **Auweg 8, 85748 Garching**
- He asks to bring/send:
  - Mieterselbstauskunft
  - Einkommensnachweise
  - SCHUFA-Auskunft

2. **Michael Sachse — Unterschleißheim**
- **Rejection**
- “Objekt anderweitig vergeben”

Everything else from yesterday’s batch still looks like just your outgoing messages, with **no reply yet**.

So the actual status is:
- **1 positive reply / viewing invitation**
- **1 rejection**
- **rest still pending**

If you want, I can next help you prepare the reply/acceptance for the **Walter Dudium** viewing and make a compact document checklist.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
I’m checking the real ImmoScout inbox now for any new replies since the batch we sent yesterday.That browser session expired, so I’m starting a fresh one and going straight to the inbox.Fresh session is up; it landed on the normal ImmoScout login page for the inbox. I’m logging in and then I’ll inspect the latest conversations for real replies.The login page changed shape a bit, so I’m grabbing the live page state and using the actual visible controls rather than guessing the field.Cookie dialog is still on top in this fresh inbox session. I’m accepting it, logging in, and then I’ll check for real replies.I’m on the password step now. After this I can inspect the real inbox and see if anybody answered.Logged back in successfully. I’m now checking the latest conversation list for any inbound replies from the people we contacted yesterday/today.Yes — there are **2 real replies** in the fresh batch:

1. **Walter Dudium — Garching**
- **Invitation to viewing**
- **Sat, 13.06.26 at 10:00**
- Address: **Auweg 8, 85748 Garching**
- He asks to bring/send:
  - Mieterselbstauskunft
  - Einkommensnachweise
  - SCHUFA-Auskunft

2. **Michael Sachse — Unterschleißheim**
- **Rejection**
- “Objekt anderweitig vergeben”

Everything else from yesterday’s batch still looks like just your outgoing messages, with **no reply yet**.

So the actual status is:
- **1 positive reply / viewing invitation**
- **1 rejection**
- **rest still pending**

If you want, I can next help you prepare the reply/acceptance for the **Walter Dudium** viewing and make a compact document checklist.


Yeah, likely many applicants — but a viewing is still a real opening, and that’s already better than the silent majority of these.

For now I’d treat it as:
- **worth viewing**
- **not worth emotionally overcommitting**
- just keep the pipeline moving in parallel

That’s the right mindset here:
- go to the viewing
- bring the requested docs
- stay polite and sharp
- but keep sending more applications because this one is not secure yet

Also good that you already sent the auto-reply — one less thing hanging.

When you want, I can:
1. keep searching/sending the next wave, or
2. help prepare a compact **viewing packet checklist** for Dudium.

Summary: High prompt-cache reuse.

Output:
Yeah, likely many applicants — but a viewing is still a real opening, and that’s already better than the silent majority of these.

For now I’d treat it as:
- **worth viewing**
- **not worth emotionally overcommitting**
- just keep the pipeline moving in parallel

That’s the right mindset here:
- go to the viewing
- bring the requested docs
- stay polite and sharp
- but keep sending more applications because this one is not secure yet

Also good that you already sent the auto-reply — one less thing hanging.

When you want, I can:
1. keep searching/sending the next wave, or
2. help prepare a compact **viewing packet checklist** for Dudium.

Great thank you I sent the auto-reply there. It's a nice enough flat to view but he will have many applicants