Record that bank vouchers return EFFECTIVEDATE but not the written party - #467
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
One live verification read with EFFECTIVEDATE and PARTYLEDGERNAME added to FETCH, over three Bridge-built bank vouchers in the synthetic lab: the effective date comes back equal to DATE, while PARTYLEDGERNAME comes back as a bank ledger rather than the counterparty Bridge wrote, so it must not be compared with the written value. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
lamemustafa
force-pushed
the
docs/bank-readback-effectivedate-party
branch
from
September 17, 2026 00:14
50c5513 to
944898f
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Docs only. This closes step 3 of the bank-writer live-session runbook and the "Two written elements are not verified" table in §9.13's writer section. The table said
EFFECTIVEDATEwas unobserved and that bank-typePARTYLEDGERNAMEecho was not observed. It added that both close with one live read that adds them toFETCHand looks at what arrives. This PR takes that read.Observation
Licensed TallyPrime 7.1 Silver, synthetic
BRIDGE SHAPE LAB. The request wasrender_import_verification_read's text withEFFECTIVEDATE,PARTYLEDGERNAMEappended toFETCH, sent once over20250422..20250423./answered 200 before and after. The window held six vouchers: the three Bridge-built ones below, found by their[BRIDGE:…]markers, and three from earlier lab runs (a Contra, a Journal and a Sales voucher). Those three also returnedEFFECTIVEDATEequal toDATE. Their written values weren't recorded, so they aren't tabulated.EFFECTIVEDATEPARTYLEDGERNAME20250422=DATEShape Buyer 5Bank of Baroda CA20250422=DATEPower ChargesBank of Baroda CA20250423=DATEHDFC CCEFFECTIVEDATEis returned, so it can be compared. The code still doesn't fetch it, and the doc says so.PARTYLEDGERNAMEis returned, but it holds a bank ledger, not the counterparty Bridge wrote. Comparing it with the written value would refuse every one of these legitimate vouchers. The doc now says not to.Provenance of the three vouchers
This is disclosed in the doc. The Receipt and Payment were built by
bridge_mcp, imported from its file, and amended from a Bridge-built file (#459's live run). The Payment was last re-imported from a copy of that file with only its amount edited; that was #459's simulated external edit. The Contra was built bybridge_mcp(#464's live run). Every file wrote the party and effective date shown.Scope
One read, one company, one release, three Bridge-built vouchers in a six-voucher window. It does not show what a Tally UI edit to either field returns, and it doesn't answer whether a readback can detect a dropped counterparty. The existing entries comparison already requires the counterparty ledger among the signed entries.
TALLY_PROTOCOL_REFERENCE.mdis pinned, so the surface is resealed;--verifypasses.🤖 Generated with Claude Code