* 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>
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>
