Commit Graph
5 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
f266c386f3 chore: repo-wide bloat sweep, remove dead code and fold duplicate helpers (#2150)
* chore: repo-wide bloat sweep, remove dead code and fold duplicate helpers

Remove 33 dead files, ~270 unreferenced exports/types, 13 dead i18n
namespaces and 4 unused dependencies; fold byte-identical helper copies
into one canonical home each (lib/utils chunk/sleep/utcDateStamp,
lib/dates/iso, lib/invariants/uuid, lib/xml/escape, lib/reports/sru/format,
lib/pdf/number-text, lib/browser/panel-request, lib/api/v1/body +
v1ValidationError rolled out to ~55 v1 routes, booking-template schemas).

No behaviour change: v1 bodies and status codes, MCP tool schemas, DB
writes and money math are untouched. Naive ore rounding was deliberately
not swapped for roundOre; see DECISIONS.md 2026-09-02 for the full list
of things left alone on purpose.

tsc, lint, 19588 unit tests and check:guards green; antipattern baseline
ratcheted (naive-ore-round 622 -> 620, hand-rolled-invariant 115 -> 113).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test(transactions): import RawTransaction from @/types after the ingest re-export removal

CI's type ratchet (check:types, full tsconfig) caught the one test file
that still imported the type through lib/transactions/ingest.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-02 11:51:16 +02:00
MattssonandClaude Fable 5 1a3686dd45 feat(inbox): promote a single prominent amount into the editable total (#2073)
* feat(inbox): promote a single prominent amount into the editable total

Follow-up to #2048 after founder review: the Belopp row was load-bearing
for matching but read-only, so a misread amount could not be corrected,
and an empty TOTALT still read as "extraction failed".

- promoteSingleProminentAmount (extraction post-step, all intake paths):
  documentKind other/government_letter with no total and exactly one
  distinct nonzero prominent amount gets it copied into totals.total,
  stamped totalSource: 'prominent'. Multi-amount documents are left
  alone: picking one silently would invent a total.
- provenance keeps the safety rails: matching demotes a promoted total
  back through the prominent-amounts fallback (0.85 discount, date guard,
  amountSource tag), so the nightly receipt-hunt still excludes these
  documents and confidence never presents as certainty.
- the fields-PATCH route clears totalSource when a human edits TOTALT:
  a user-set amount is a verified total at full weight.
- the read-only Belopp row now renders only for multi-amount documents,
  and filters zero amounts ("Totalt manadspris: 0 kr" noise).

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

* fix(inbox): review pass: concurrency-safe fields PATCH, zero-amount predicate

CodeRabbit findings on #2073:
- the fields-PATCH read-merge-write could let a racing autosave restore a
  stale extracted_data blob (including a totalSource stamp a concurrent
  TOTALT edit had just cleared). The update is now conditional on the
  trigger-maintained updated_at; zero rows matched returns 409 and the
  client's next debounced save re-reads.
- hasAnyExtractedField now uses the same meaningful-amount predicate as
  the Belopp render filter, so a zero-only prominentAmounts list no longer
  suppresses the retry / upgrade affordances.

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>
2026-08-31 11:40:30 +02:00
MattssonandClaude Fable 5 516e8b62ff 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>
2026-08-30 23:52:29 +02:00
4c479f84f4 feat(receipt-hunt): convert a foreign receipt instead of refusing to compare it (#1497)
* feat(receipt-hunt): compare a foreign receipt by converting it, not by refusing

A Swedish bank posts a converted figure for a purchase abroad while the
receipt states the original: Anthropic bills 180,00 EUR and the statement
reads -2 014,32 kr. Neither number appears in the other document, so the
matcher refused the pair rather than guess. On a SaaS-heavy ledger that is
not an edge case: of 25 receipts fetched from a real company's mailboxes,
14 were in USD or EUR and none could ever pair.

The receipt's total is now resolved into kronor with Riksbanken's rate for
its own date, and handed to the same matcher, which still wants the
merchant and the date to agree. The seam already existed: the scorer
passed null where a SEK value would go, with a comment explaining that
cross-currency pairs were deliberately incomparable. Surfaces that do not
resolve a rate still pass nothing and behave exactly as before.

Rates are fetched once per currency and day. Riksbanken answers 429 to a
caller that asks per document, and a run holds a dozen receipts from one
vendor in one month. A rate that cannot be resolved leaves the receipt
exactly as incomparable as it was.

Two calibration faults surfaced once the amounts became comparable:

A converted total is judged at 9% rather than 5%. Riksbanken publishes a
mid rate and a card issuer charges its own, so the two carry a known
spread on top of any disagreement about the sum: measured against real
statements, 1.2% to 3%. Holding both to one bar treats a rate spread as
if it were a discrepancy.

The date tolerance moves from 3 days to 10. A card settles days after the
purchase, an international one routinely a week later, and a forwarded
receipt carries the purchase date while the statement carries the posting.
At three days the signal scored zero for ordinary correct pairs and took a
quarter of the weight with it: a receipt agreeing to within 1%, from a
merchant the matcher recognised, still capped at 0.62. The 27 human-
confirmed pairs and the 7 near-misses that must not match all still hold.

Measured on that ledger: purchases with any candidate at all go 9 -> 13,
and the Anthropic pair proposes at 0.82 where it was previously
unscoreable.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(receipt-hunt): an undated receipt is not converted at today's rate

Raised in review. A foreign receipt with no invoiceDate fell back to the
current date, which put a receipt of unknown age into amount matching on
the strength of a guess: a rate two years out is how something
incomparable acquires confidence it has not earned. No date, no
conversion, and the receipt stays exactly as it was.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 17:54:22 +02:00
43386b4852 feat(agent): offer unmatched inbox receipts as confirmable underlag (#1436)
The originally reported scenario is still broken after #1425 and its
backfill-by-document_id: a user photographs a receipt into WhatsApp, answers
the bot's questions, then opens the app, clicks the bank transaction and asks
the assistant to book it, and is told "UNDERLAG: saknas" about a receipt we
are holding, then asked everything again.

WhatsApp intake writes neither invoice_inbox_items.matched_transaction_id
(process-inbound.ts passes uploadAndExtract's matchedTransactionId as
undefined) nor transactions.document_id (that mirror is written by the manual
match route). Only TransactionMatchPicker fills either column. So the underlag
list comes back empty, and a backfill that keys on document_id has nothing to
key on.

Unmatched, unconsumed inbox items are now scored against the transaction with
the same pure scorer the picker uses and the strongest few are surfaced as
TROLIGT UNDERLAG, carrying their captured chat answers.

Proposals only: nothing writes matched_transaction_id, and the prompt tells
the agent to get the match confirmed and to book only against a confirmed one.
Setting the link at intake above a confidence bar is the obvious alternative
and is deliberately left open.

An uncomparable amount (cross-currency with no rate) disqualifies a candidate,
because calculateMatchConfidence drops the amount signal in that case and date
+ merchant alone then score a confident match nobody checked the sums for.

Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 14:07:30 +02:00