feat(inbox): match non-invoice documents via prominent amounts (#2048)

* feat(inbox): match non-invoice documents via prominent amounts

Bankintyg, bank agreements and other documentKind "other" PDFs carry no
invoice-style total, so extraction correctly left totals.total null and the
document became structurally unmatchable: findUnderlagCandidates hard-drops
items without a comparable amount and the picker lost the 40% amount signal.

- extraction: new prominentAmounts[] field (amount + document's own label),
  populated only when totals.total is null; account/org/phone/reference
  numbers and zero amounts excluded. totals.total semantics untouched.
- matching: bestProminentAmountVariance() tries each printed amount and
  feeds calculateMatchConfidence at reduced weight (0.3 vs 0.4) in both the
  agent candidate scorer and TransactionMatchPicker.
- UI: inbox rail shows the detected amounts read-only for such documents,
  list falls back to a single distinct prominent amount, and extraction no
  longer reads as "found nothing".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hqm9QgdyNAFaWiz6Ww7pgb

* fix(inbox): discount prominent-amount fallback instead of reweighting it

Skeptic pass refutations on the first commit: normalized weighting made a
reduced amount weight self-defeating. Date + exact fallback amount with no
merchant scored (0.25+0.3)/0.55 = 1.0 ("100% sakerhet" on a wrong same-day
transaction), and a DISAGREEING fallback amount scored above a disagreeing
invoice total (0.67 vs 0.60) because shrinking the weight also shrank the
penalty.

- score fallbacks at full amount weight, then multiply by a flat
  FALLBACK_CONFIDENCE_FACTOR (0.85): agreement caps below certainty,
  disagreement stays at least as damning as for a real total.
- agent candidate surface additionally requires the document date within
  DATE_TOLERANCE_DAYS, so an avtal listing 349 kr no longer matches every
  future 349 kr charge from the same counterparty.
- bestProminentAmountVariance returns which amount matched + its document
  label, and the match reason names it ("Exakt belopp i dokumentet: 2 500
  SEK (Engangspris)"): no more bare "Exakt belopp" reaching the agent while
  total_amount is null.
- prompt: prominentAmounts restricted to non-invoice documentKinds, and
  never a parking spot for an unreadable invoice total.
- fix the stale "deliberately the same list" comment on
  EXTRACTED_FIELD_ACCESSORS.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hqm9QgdyNAFaWiz6Ww7pgb

* fix(receipt-hunt): never propose on the prominent-amounts fallback

Second skeptic pass: the nightly hunt is a third consumer of
scoreUnderlagCandidates and inherited the fallback unaware. A bankintyg
whose printed "Insatt belopp" equals a same-day outflow scores 0.85, which
clears CERTAIN_CONFIDENCE (0.8) and skips LLM adjudication, on a pairing
wrong by construction (the hunt scans outflows only; "Insatt belopp"
labels an inflow), with document_amount null in the approval preview.

UnderlagCandidate now carries amountSource ('total' | 'prominent') and
selectProposals drops fallback-scored candidates. Non-invoice documents
stay reachable through the manual picker and the agent candidate surface,
both of which have a human reading the amounts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hqm9QgdyNAFaWiz6Ww7pgb

* fix(inbox): round fallback confidence via roundOre, not the naive pattern

The two confidence discounts (and their test) tripped the naive-ore-round
antipattern ratchet (625 vs baseline 622); use the sanctioned helper.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hqm9QgdyNAFaWiz6Ww7pgb

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

lib/receipt-hunt/__tests__/select.test.ts

@@ -68,6 +68,25 @@ describe('selectProposals', () => {
     expect(selectProposals([tx()], [], noSuppression)).toEqual([])
   })
 
+  it('never proposes on the prominent-amounts fallback', () => {
+    // A bankintyg (documentKind "other", no invoice-style total) whose printed
+    // "Insatt belopp" happens to equal a same-day outflow scores 0.85 on the
+    // shared matcher, which would clear CERTAIN_CONFIDENCE and skip
+    // adjudication, on a pairing that is wrong by construction: the hunt scans
+    // outflows only, and "Insatt belopp" labels an inflow. Fallback-scored
+    // candidates are for the picker and the agent, never the nightly hunt.
+    const bankintyg = item(
+      { id: 'item-intyg', document_id: 'doc-intyg' },
+      {
+        supplier: { name: null },
+        totals: { total: null, vatAmount: null },
+        documentKind: 'other',
+        prominentAmounts: [{ amount: 438.75, label: 'Insatt belopp' }],
+      },
+    )
+    expect(selectProposals([tx()], [bankintyg], noSuppression)).toEqual([])
+  })
+
   it('skips a transaction that already has a live proposal', () => {
     const result = selectProposals([tx()], [item()], {
       claimedTransactionIds: new Set(['tx-1']),

lib/receipt-hunt/select.ts

@@ -172,6 +172,15 @@ export function selectProposals(
     const scored = scoreUnderlagCandidates(tx, pool as never[]).filter(
       (candidate) =>
         candidate.document_id != null &&
+        // Never propose on the prominent-amounts fallback (non-invoice
+        // documents: bankintyg, avtal). The hunt's thresholds were calibrated
+        // for invoice-style totals; a fallback pair can reach 0.85 on date +
+        // printed-figure alone, which clears CERTAIN_CONFIDENCE and skips
+        // adjudication, and its preview would show document_amount null. The
+        // hunt also scans outflows only, so an inflow-labeled figure
+        // ("Insatt belopp") is guaranteed to pair with the wrong row. Those
+        // documents stay reachable through the picker and agent candidates.
+        candidate.amountSource !== 'prominent' &&
         !spentDocumentIds.has(candidate.document_id) &&
         !suppression.claimedDocumentIds.has(candidate.document_id) &&
         !suppression.rejectedPairs.has(pairKey(tx.id, candidate.document_id)),