# Receipt Capture ("Editor") & Related Net-New Features — Implementation Spec

Source: Jorge Cuadros meeting notes, 2026-07-25/26 (`Utility Management` section)
plus a business-logic read-through of `UTILITIES.accdb`'s legacy "Editor"
workflow (`docs/LEGACY_DATABASES_OBJECTS.md`, `docs/LEGACY_DATABASES.md`).
This is a forward spec for work **not yet built**, not a record of what
exists — contrast with `RENEWAL_NOTICES.md`, which documents a legacy
workflow already migrated.

## Why these four features are one spec

The meeting covered one legacy workflow (receipt capture, the "Editor") plus
three requests that have no legacy precedent at all. They're specified
together because they compose:

1. **Receipt capture module** — the direct replacement for the legacy
   "Editor" screens, extending what's already built in `billing/`.
2. **PDF/OCR auto-capture** — a new intake path that feeds *into* module 1
   (an OCR-confirmed statement becomes a captured receipt, not a separate
   ledger).
3. **Multi-bank chequera** — changes what a captured receipt's check number
   reconciles against (module 1's check-reconciliation view needs to know
   *which bank account* a check was drawn on).
4. **Customer-number recycling** — changes how a customer is created, which
   is the first step of capturing a receipt for them (module 1's customer
   picker needs to respect whatever number a recycled customer was assigned).

Each section below is independently buildable and independently useful, but
1 should land before 2 (2 posts through 1's API), and 4 is fully
independent of the other three.

---

## 1. Receipt capture module (the "Editor" replacement)

### What's already built (do not re-build)

`apps/api/src/billing/` + `apps/web` `MovementForm.tsx` already provide
single-movement manual capture: `POST /billing` (`ledger:create`) creates one
signed `Transaction` row with customer, domain, amount, currency, date,
concept (`typeId`), period, reference, check number, and message; `POST
/billing/:id/void` (`ledger:void`) reverses one. This is the direct
equivalent of the legacy `DATOS AGUA`/`DATOS LUZ`/`DATOS TEL`/`DATOS CLAVE`
per-service capture screens, already generalized into one form — **the
per-service screens do not need to be rebuilt separately**; `domain` +
`typeId` (from `TypeTransaction`) already carry that distinction, and the
capture form can pre-select a concept when opened from a property's service
tab.

What's missing is everything the legacy system did *around* that single
capture: batching many receipts against one check, separating out unpaid
items, and reconciling a check's total against what was captured against it.

### 1.1 Outstanding ("NOPAGO") workflow

`Transaction.outstanding` already exists in the Prisma schema but nothing
reads or writes it yet.

- **`CreateMovementDto`** (`billing/movement.dto.ts`): add `outstanding?:
  boolean`, default `false`. When `true`, the movement posts normally but is
  excluded from "settled" balance views — mirrors the legacy `SALDOS ULTIMO
  0` query, which already `HAVING NOPAGO = 0`s outstanding rows out of the
  balance.
- **`MovementForm.tsx`**: add an "Outstanding (sin fondos)" checkbox, shown
  only for `domain = UTILITY` charge-direction rows (this is a per-service
  charge concept, not a credit/payment concept).
- **New endpoint** `POST /billing/:id/resolve-outstanding` (`ledger:create` —
  same tier as capture, since resolving is completing a capture, not
  reversing one). Body: `{ checkNumber: string, resolvedDate: string }`.
  Sets `outstanding = false`, `checkNumber`, and updates `transactionDate` to
  `resolvedDate` — this is the literal legacy behavior ("se actualiza
  registro con fecha del día y el cheque a pagar y quitas outstanding").
  Reject (400) if the row is already resolved or voided.
- **New list filter**: `GET /billing?outstanding=true` (extend
  `MovementParams`) — replaces the legacy `EDITA NO PAGO AGUA/LUZ/PHONE`
  per-service outstanding screens with one filterable view (service already
  filterable via `typeId`).
- **Web**: an "Outstanding" tab or filter chip on `/estado-cuenta`
  (Movimientos tab), each row showing a "Resolver" action that opens a small
  form for check number + date.

### 1.2 Batch capture by check

Legacy staff key many customers' receipts against one check before cutting
it, then verify the captured total matches the check amount
(`CAPTURA AGUA`/`CAPTURA LUZ`/etc. feeding into `EDITA CHEQUE COUNT`/
`REPORTE POR CHEQUE`). Model this as a **bulk-create, not a new persisted
entity** — a check number is already a plain field on `Transaction`; there's
no need for a `ReceiptBatch` table when grouping by `checkNumber` already
answers every legacy query.

- **New endpoint** `POST /billing/batch` (`ledger:create`). Body: `{
  domain, typeId, transactionDate, currency, checkNumber, lines: [{
  customerId, amount, reference, period, outstanding? }] }` — the
  check-level fields are shared, only the per-customer fields repeat. Runs
  as one Prisma `$transaction`, returns the created rows plus `{ total,
  count }` so the UI can show the running total against the physical check
  amount as staff add lines, exactly matching the legacy reconciliation
  practice.
- **Web**: a `/estado-cuenta/captura` (or `/estado-cuenta/lote`) page — a
  service-type + check-number header, then a repeating row (customer picker
  + reference + amount + outstanding toggle), a running total, and a single
  submit. This is the actual "Editor" screen the meeting notes are asking
  for; it should be reachable from a new nav entry under "Estado de cuenta"
  or "Servicios."

### 1.3 Check reconciliation view

Direct replacement for `EDITA CHEQUE ALF/COUNT/NUM`, `REPORTE POR CHEQUE`,
`REPORTE POR CHEQUE PARA ALFA`, and the `REPORTE CHEQUE COUNT` report named
explicitly in the meeting notes.

- **New endpoint** `GET /billing/by-check?checkNumber=...` — all
  non-voided `Transaction` rows with that `checkNumber`, plus `{ total,
  count }`. Trivial query, no new indexes needed beyond the existing
  `checkNumber` column (add a plain index — it's currently unindexed).
- **New report entry** in `reports.registry.ts`: `slug: "cheque-count"`,
  `legacyName: "REPORTE CHEQUE COUNT"`, params `{ checkNumber: text }`,
  columns customer/reference/period/concept/amount, reusing the by-check
  query above. This gives it a printable form for free via the existing
  `/reportes/:slug` machinery — no new page needed.

### Abilities

No new abilities required — everything above reuses `ledger:create` /
`ledger:void` (already `STAFF` / `MANAGER`). Batch capture and outstanding
resolution are both "capturing a receipt," same trust tier as the existing
single-movement form.

---

## 2. PDF / OCR auto-capture

> **BUILT — 2026-08-01.** As-built reference:
> [`STATEMENT_OCR.md`](STATEMENT_OCR.md) — what the shipped feature does, its
> parsers, matcher rules and API surface. This section stays the *design* and
> the evidence behind it; go there for what is in the code today.
>
> Implemented and verified end to end against real
> scanned statements. `apps/api/src/statements/` holds the module: a swappable
> `OcrProvider` seam with a self-hosted Tesseract implementation, per-provider
> parsers for CFE / CESPT / Telnor / gas / predial, a scoped matcher, and a
> review queue that
> posts through `BillingService.createBatch` with `source: "OCR"`. Web:
> the "Captura automática (OCR)" tab of the Captura screen (upload + batch
> list) and `/recibos/:id` (review queue with the page image beside the
> extracted fields). New abilities `statement:ingest` / `statement:review`, both
> STAFF.
>
> Auto-capture is a *mode of* §1.2's capture screen, not a separate menu entry:
> it is the same daily job with a scanner instead of a keyboard, and both modes
> post through the same ledger path. `/estado-cuenta/lote` opens the manual tab,
> `/recibos` the automatic one; both render `components/Captura.tsx`.
>
> Requires object storage (`S3_ENDPOINT` + credentials): the scans are kept as
> blobs. `GET /statements/status` reports `ocrAvailable` and `storageAvailable`,
> and the upload card hides itself unless both hold.
>
> **This pipeline turned out to generalise, and a second feature came out of
> it.** Once render → OCR → parse → match → review existed for utility
> receipts, the same shape obviously fit the *other* stack of paper this
> office keys in by hand — carrier policy PDFs. That is
> [`POLICY_OCR.md`](POLICY_OCR.md), built 2026-08-01, and it is **not in any
> spec**; it was a revelation from doing this one. The `OcrProvider` seam was
> lifted out of `StatementsModule` into its own `OcrModule` so the policy
> module could inject it without taking on the statement pipeline —
> `StatementsModule` imports it now and binds nothing itself. The engine
> choice stays a one-line change in one file, for both features.
>
> One assumption does **not** carry over: statements arrive bundled *one
> customer per page*, so here a page is a document. A policy PDF is one
> document across several pages. See that doc's "One PDF = one policy".
>
> **Measured, not assumed.** Ten real scans (46 pages of CFE, CESPT and Telnor
> bills) drove every decision below. Against them the shipped parser identifies
> the provider on **46/46**, reads an account reference on **43/46**, an amount
> on **42/46**, and a due date on **44/46**. Matched against the dev database
> that is **39/46 (85%) exact auto-match, 40/46 (87%) identified**. The
> remainder are legitimate review cases: one account number shared by two
> services, three phone numbers not yet on file, one clave not in the book, and
> one page too poorly scanned to read.
>
> **The OCR-provider question is closed: self-hosted Tesseract.** It clears the
> bar for a queue where a human confirms every row, and at 300+ pages/month/
> company a per-page API would carry real recurring cost for accuracy that is
> not the bottleneck. `OcrProvider` keeps a managed API (Textract, Document
> Intelligence, Document AI) a one-line swap in `statements.module.ts` with no
> schema change.
>
> **Four things the samples proved that this spec had wrong or unknown:**
>
> 1. **Clave catastral ≠ predial — gap 2 below is resolved.** `DATMEX.clave` is
>    934 rows of `[A-Z]{2}[0-9]{6}` (`MM000012`, `KH220204`), the exact format
>    printed as `Cve. Cat.` / `CLAVE CATASTRAL` on real CESPT bills
>    (`KB078025`, `KA903009`). `DATMEX.predial` — what
>    `PROPERTY_TAX.accountNumber` actually holds — is 1135 numeric rows with
>    only **663 distinct values**, so it is not a per-property key at all and
>    appears on no statement. The clave was never migrated; it now lives on
>    `Property.cadastralKey` (property-level, because two different services
>    both print it) and is the matcher's secondary key. Predial is left
>    untouched. Predial statements match on the clave alone.
> 2. **Gas is not a dead end — gap 3 below was wrong.** `DATMEX.gas` has 334
>    filled rows, of which **160 are real numeric account numbers**
>    (`900004807`); the other 174 are tank descriptors (`ESTACIONARIO`,
>    `CILINDRO`). All 334 went to `notes`. The 160 are recovered into
>    `GAS.meterNumber`; only the descriptor rows start cold.
> 3. **Phone is one line per property, not three.** Of 1518 properties, 534
>    have `phone1`, 18 have `phone2` and exactly **1** has `phone3`. The
>    secondaries are alternate contacts, so `TELEPHONE` backfills from `phone1`
>    only rather than fanning out. This answers the open question below.
> 4. **Statements arrive bundled, and their printed names are stale.** One PDF
>    holds many customers, one per page (Telnor's own `Pág 3 de 6` refers to
>    its internal pagination, not the office's scan). And the name on a utility
>    bill is the account registrant, not the current owner: a CESPT receipt for
>    account `5365218` prints `ARNAIZ ROSAS ELSA AURORA` where the office's
>    book — corroborated by the clave — has `CATT, RANDY`. **The matcher never
>    reads the name.**
>
> **Two OCR traps worth keeping in mind if the parsers are ever extended:**
> scanned logos read badly (a CESPT header came back as `E BAJA ES PAGO /
> EALIFORNIA`), so provider detection falls back to layout anchors — but only
> after *every* brand check has run, since a Telnor page contains words a CFE
> structural rule would otherwise claim. And amounts must be parsed by
> separator position: a real Telnor bill OCR'd as `$ 649,00`, which naive
> comma-stripping turns into $64,900.
>
> **Not covered:** handwritten folder numbers. Staff pencil a customer number on
> each bill (`9`, `405`, `406`); Tesseract read `405` as `205`. Handwriting is
> a review hint at best and is deliberately not an input to matching.

> **EXTENDED — gas and predial, 2026-08-01.** A second corpus (14 documents,
> 29 pages: five municipal predial batches and ten gas invoices) added four
> parsers — `GAS TIJUANA` plus one per municipality, because Tijuana, Rosarito
> and Ensenada issue three completely different documents. End to end against
> the dev database that is **21/29 auto-matched, 22/29 identified**, with the
> provider read on 29/29 and an amount on 26/29.
>
> The eight review cases are all legitimate: five Tijuana pages whose municipal
> account is not yet on file (see below), one clave not in the book, one page
> too poorly scanned to read a clave at all, and one gas account shared by two
> services. Excluding the structural Tijuana case, that is 21/24.
>
> **Five things this corpus proved:**
>
> 1. **Not every statement is a scan.** The gas company sends born-digital CFDI
>    invoices whose text layer is exact. Rasterising and re-recognising those
>    can only lose information — one sample turned `MEDIDOR: VM01014426` into
>    `ar (LTR): 014420` — so `OcrProvider.textPages` reads the embedded layer
>    first (`pdftotext -bbox-layout`, same poppler package as `pdftoppm`) and
>    OCR stays the fallback for real scans. Page images are still rendered and
>    stored either way, because the reviewer needs to see the paper.
> 2. **The clave catastral is not two letters and six digits.** Positions four
>    through eight are digits in all 932 stored claves, but the third is a
>    letter in fifteen of them (`MMB01041`, `CGH52121`). Digitising the whole
>    tail maps that `B` to an `8` and produces a key matching no property.
> 3. **Tijuana predial prints no clave catastral at all.** Its only identifier
>    is an 8-digit municipal account, carried in a 32-digit payment barcode
>    (`account(8) + DDMMYY + amount(9) + folio(9)`) that the legacy database
>    never held. It goes in `PROPERTY_TAX.meterNumber` — the same column gas
>    uses, and for the same reason: `accountNumber` holds `DATMEX.predial`,
>    which is not a per-property key and overwriting it would destroy the only
>    link back to the original records. So Tijuana pages start cold and are
>    taught by the first confirm, exactly like gas.
> 4. **On Rosarito and Ensenada the clave is the primary key, not a fallback.**
>    Those receipts print nothing else, so a unique clave hit there is a real
>    match and auto-matches; on a utility bill that merely happens to print one
>    it stays a review hint, as before.
> 5. **A misread `$` is the dangerous failure, not a missing one.** An Ensenada
>    receipt for `$2,203.00` OCR'd as `82,203.00` — the dollar sign read as an
>    8, which would post a charge 37× too large and look entirely ordinary in
>    the ledger. Every predial amount therefore requires a literal `$`, and a
>    page that cannot produce one reports no amount and goes to review. Two of
>    the 29 pages take that path, which is the correct outcome for both.
>
> Regression cover for all of the above lives in
> `statement-parser.spec.ts` and `tesseract.provider.spec.ts`; every fixture in
> them is a verbatim OCR excerpt from a real receipt.

> **EXTENDED — zona federal, 2026-08-01.** A third corpus (one document, 8
> pages of Tijuana "Zona Federal Marítimo Terrestre" receipts — the federal
> maritime-zone occupancy fee billed on beachfront lots) added the
> `ZONA FEDERAL TIJUANA` parser. Provider read on 8/8, amount on 8/8 (all
> eight verified against the paper), concession clave on 6/8, period on 8/8,
> payment deadline on 2/8. Nothing auto-matched, and nothing could have — see
> point 2.
>
> **Four things this corpus proved:**
>
> 1. **Tijuana bills predial and zona federal from the same treasury.** Same
>    "Ayuntamiento de Tijuana" header, same Paseo del Centenario address, same
>    `ATB-541201` RFC — every discriminator the predial parser uses matches a
>    zona federal page too, so whichever rule is asked first wins. The words
>    only this layout prints are `Marítimo Terrestre`, so its brand rule is
>    asked ahead of all three predial ones.
> 2. **`FEDERAL_ZONE.accountNumber` is an amount, not a reference.** It holds
>    `DATMEX.zfed`, whose 77 values include `246.06`, `2369.09`, `22653.94` and
>    a negative `-1679`; the concession claves the receipts are keyed by
>    (`12-T -012`, `14-D -014`) appear nowhere in the database. Matching on that
>    column could never hit — and because every row already has a value, the
>    `[field]: null` guards on learning and on the blank-service fill would
>    never fire either, so every page would return to review every bimester
>    forever. The clave moves to `meterNumber`, joining gas and Tijuana predial,
>    and the first confirm teaches the match. This is the same trap as
>    `policies.total` and `PROPERTY_TAX.accountNumber`: a legacy column whose
>    name promises an identifier and whose contents are something else.
> 3. **The payable figure is not the printed subtotal.** The municipality rounds
>    to whole pesos and prints the difference as its own `Ajuste Ley Hacienda
>    Mpal` line — `-$0.05` against a 591.05 subtotal, `$0.21` against 2,872.79.
>    The "Total a pagar" box that carries the rounded figure sits on a grey fill
>    and OCR'd on 1 of 8 pages; the SubTotal row read on 8 of 8. So the amount
>    is the rounded subtotal, cross-checked against the printed box wherever it
>    survives (it agreed).
> 4. **The office's own highlighter is an OCR failure mode.** Both pages that
>    lost their clave lost it to a marker stroke drawn across the `Clave:` line
>    — not to scan quality, which was otherwise fine. The clave is printed twice
>    (receipt and stub), which rescued a third page whose heading was struck
>    but whose stub was not; where both copies are struck, the page reports no
>    clave and goes to review rather than guessing.
>
> **Not attempted:** deriving the payment deadline from the bimester. It is the
> 17th of the month after the bimester closes on a current bill, but four of
> these eight are late — they carry a $1,000 `Multa` — and print a
> recalculated deadline a month out. A derived date would be wrong on exactly
> the pages a human most wants to look at, so an unreadable deadline stays
> null.

### Motivation (from the meeting)

Each utility company (CFE, water, phone, gas...) sends 300+ individual
statements a month, one per customer, currently keyed in by hand through the
per-service capture screens — a high-volume, error-prone manual step. The
ask: scan/receive the statements as PDF(s), have the system determine
customer + amount automatically, and only require staff review rather than
full manual entry.

### Pipeline

```
Upload (1+ PDFs, one service kind per batch)
  -> StorageService stores raw file(s)
  -> Split into one document per statement (if a batch PDF bundles multiple)
  -> OCR extraction (account/meter number, amount, period, due date)
  -> Auto-match against PropertyService (accountNumber / meterNumber / route)
  -> Review queue: high-confidence matches pre-filled, no-match/low-confidence flagged
  -> Staff confirms (bulk-confirm high-confidence rows, hand-correct the rest)
  -> Confirmed rows post through the SAME batch-capture path as §1.2
  -> Source PDF page attached as a ServiceDocument on the matched property
```

The last two steps deliberately reuse §1.2's batch-capture endpoint rather
than writing `Transaction` rows directly — OCR-sourced and hand-keyed
receipts should go through one write path, one validation path, one audit
trail.

### Data model (new)

```prisma
enum StatementBatchStatus {
  UPLOADED
  PROCESSING
  READY_FOR_REVIEW
  COMPLETED
  FAILED
}

enum StatementDocumentStatus {
  PENDING_OCR
  OCR_FAILED
  NEEDS_REVIEW      // no confident match, or low OCR confidence
  MATCHED           // confident auto-match, awaiting staff confirmation
  CONFIRMED         // staff confirmed, not yet posted
  POSTED            // posted as a Transaction
  REJECTED          // staff rejected (duplicate, unreadable, wrong batch)
}

// `ServiceKind` needs one addition for this feature: `TELEPHONE`. It
// doesn't exist today — phone numbers live on `Property.phone1/2/3`, not as
// `PropertyService` rows. See "Matching logic" below for why OCR matching
// needs it as a real service kind, and the backfill this implies.

/// One upload session — e.g. "October CFE statements."
model StatementBatch {
  id           String                @id @default(uuid())
  serviceKind  ServiceKind
  status       StatementBatchStatus  @default(UPLOADED)
  uploadedById String
  fileCount    Int
  createdAt    DateTime              @default(now())
  documents    StatementDocument[]

  @@map("statement_batches")
}

/// One statement (one customer, one period) after splitting the batch.
model StatementDocument {
  id                  String                    @id @default(uuid())
  batchId             String
  batch               StatementBatch            @relation(fields: [batchId], references: [id])
  storageKey          String
  status              StatementDocumentStatus   @default(PENDING_OCR)

  // Raw OCR output, kept even after a manual correction so mismatches are
  // auditable.
  ocrRawText          String?                   @db.Text
  ocrConfidence        Decimal?                 @db.Decimal(4, 3)

  // Extracted (and, after review, staff-corrected) fields.
  extractedAccountRef String?                   // RPU / phone / water account / zona fed / clave catastral / gas meter — see "Matching logic" for which PropertyService field this maps to per serviceKind
  extractedAmount     Decimal?                  @db.Decimal(12, 2)
  extractedPeriod     String?
  extractedDueDate    DateTime?

  // Match result.
  matchedPropertyServiceId String?
  matchedPropertyService   PropertyService?      @relation(fields: [matchedPropertyServiceId], references: [id])
  matchedCustomerId        String?
  matchedCustomer          Customer?             @relation(fields: [matchedCustomerId], references: [id])

  reviewedById        String?
  reviewedAt          DateTime?
  postedTransactionId String?                   @unique
  postedTransaction   Transaction?              @relation(fields: [postedTransactionId], references: [id])

  createdAt           DateTime                  @default(now())

  @@map("statement_documents")
}
```

(`PropertyService`/`Customer`/`Transaction` gain the inverse relations.
`ServiceDocument` is reused as-is for the confirmed receipt's permanent
attachment — `StatementDocument.storageKey` and the eventual
`ServiceDocument.storageKey` may point at the same object, or the confirm
step copies it; either is fine, pick whichever is simpler at build time.)

### Matching logic

Match `extractedAccountRef` against **one specific `PropertyService` field,
chosen by `serviceKind`** — never a fuzzy match across all of
`accountNumber`/`meterNumber`/`route` at once, since that's how a water
account number could accidentally collide with an unrelated phone number.
Per the meeting notes' own field list:

| Service (meeting note) | `ServiceKind` | Match against | Legacy source (`DATMEX`) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFE — RPU | `ELECTRIC` | `accountNumber` | `RPU` / `RPU2` / `RPU3` | ✅ populated today (`transform_properties.py`) |
| Agua — Número de cuenta | `WATER` | `accountNumber` | `AGUA` | ✅ populated today |
| Zona Fed — Número de Zona Federal | `FEDERAL_ZONE` | `accountNumber` | `ZFED` | ✅ populated today |
| Tel — Número de teléfono | `TELEPHONE` *(new)* | `accountNumber` | `Property.phone1/2/3` (currently on `Property`, not `PropertyService`) | ⚠️ schema gap — see below |
| Impuesto — Clave Catastral | `PROPERTY_TAX` | `Property.cadastralKey`, plus `meterNumber` for Tijuana's municipal account | `CLAVE`; `PREDIAL` is left on `accountNumber` and never matched against | ✅ built — see the 2026-08-01 extension note |
| Gas — Número de medidor | `GAS` | `meterNumber` | not populated — folded into free-text `notes` today | ✅ 160/334 recovered from `notes` |

Confidence rule of thumb once a field is confirmed populated, tune after
seeing real statements:

- Exact match on the scoped field → `MATCHED`, high confidence, pre-checked
  for bulk-confirm.
- No match, or the OCR confidence itself is low → `NEEDS_REVIEW`.
- Multiple candidate matches (shouldn't happen if account numbers are
  unique, but the legacy data has had duplication issues before — see
  `docs/LEGACY_DATABASES_OBJECTS.md`'s `DUPLICADOS` report) → `NEEDS_REVIEW`
  with all candidates surfaced, not an arbitrary pick.

#### Three gaps this depends on — resolve before building the matcher

Cross-checking the requested field list against `transform_properties.py`
(the script that actually populated today's `property_services` table)
surfaced three mismatches. OCR matching is only as good as the field it
matches against, so these need to be closed first, not discovered mid-build:

1. **No `TELEPHONE` service kind exists.** `ServiceKind` today is `WATER |
   ELECTRIC | GAS | CABLE | PROPERTY_TAX | FEDERAL_ZONE | ALARM | OTHER` —
   telephone was never unpivoted into `PropertyService` at all; the three
   phone numbers live directly on `Property.phone1/phone2/phone3` (raw
   contact fields, not billable-service rows), even though the legacy
   ledger clearly bills phone as its own `TYPE OF TRX = "TELEPHONE"` (see
   `EDITA NO PAGO PHONE`, `DATOS TEL`/`CAPTURA TEL` in the prior analysis).
   **Fix:** add `TELEPHONE` to the `ServiceKind` enum, and backfill one
   `PropertyService` row per non-null `Property.phone1/2/3` (`kind:
   TELEPHONE, accountNumber: <the phone number>`) as a one-time migration
   script companion to this feature — mirrors how `transform_properties.py`
   already emits multiple `WATER` rows per property for secondary meters.

2. **`PROPERTY_TAX.accountNumber` holds `PREDIAL`, not `CLAVE`.** The
   meeting notes name "Clave Catastral" specifically, and the legacy
   query/report names agree (`CAPTURA CLAVE`, `DATOS CLAVE`, `CLAVES
   CATASTRALES`, `CATASTRO` — all filter on `DATMEX.CLAVE`). But
   `transform_properties.py` line ~191 sets `PROPERTY_TAX.accountNumber =
   DATMEX.PREDIAL`, a *different* column (`DATMEX` has both `CLAVE`
   VARCHAR and `PREDIAL` DOUBLE). Two live possibilities: either `PREDIAL`
   is the wrong field and the migration should have used `CLAVE`, or they're
   two genuinely different numbers (e.g. clave catastral = the cadastral
   lookup key stamped on the printed bill vs. predial = an internal
   receipt/folio number) and `PropertyService` needs *both* — only one of
   which (the clave catastral) is what OCR will actually read off a real
   predial statement. **Needs a real predial receipt in hand (or Jorge's
   confirmation) before deciding**; don't wire the matcher to `PREDIAL` on
   the untested assumption it's the same thing.

3. **`GAS.meterNumber` is never populated.** `transform_properties.py`
   only ever sets `notes = DATMEX.GAS` for gas service rows — there's no
   distinct meter-number column in the legacy `DATMEX` table for gas at
   all (unlike electric/water, which have `RPU`/`MEDIDOR`). This matches
   the earlier finding that "Gas – Número de medidor" has no legacy source
   field. **This can't be backfilled from existing data** — the practical
   fix is that gas OCR matching starts cold (every gas statement lands in
   `NEEDS_REVIEW` until a human confirms it once), and *that first
   confirmation* is what populates `PropertyService.meterNumber` for that
   property going forward, so subsequent statements for the same meter
   auto-match. Worth calling out in the review-queue UI ("first time
   seeing this meter — confirm to enable auto-match next time").

### OCR provider — open decision, don't build against one prematurely

CFE (and most MX utility) bills are **fixed-layout, single-language,
high-volume forms**, not arbitrary documents — this is closer to
"template/anchor text extraction" (regex against OCR'd text for known
labels like `RPU`, `No. de Cuenta`, `Total a pagar`) than to a full ML
document-understanding problem. Recommend:

- Define an `OcrProvider` interface (`extract(buffer, hints): Promise<{
  text: string, fields: ExtractedFields, confidence: number }>`) so the
  concrete engine is swappable.
- Start with a self-hosted OCR (e.g. Tesseract) + hand-written per-company
  extraction rules (one rule set per `ServiceKind`/provider, since CFE's
  layout differs from the water company's). Cheap, no per-page cost, and the
  layouts are stable enough that this is realistic.
- Escalate to a managed document-extraction API (AWS Textract, Azure
  Document Intelligence, Google Document AI) only if the self-hosted
  accuracy proves too low in practice — all three fit behind the same
  interface with no schema changes.
- **This choice needs Jorge's input on budget/volume before committing** —
  300+ pages/month/company is enough volume that a per-page-priced API has a
  real recurring cost.

### API surface

- `POST /statements/batches` (`statement:ingest`) — multipart upload, one or
  more PDFs + `serviceKind`. Creates the batch, kicks off async
  split+OCR+match (background job, not inline in the request).
- `GET /statements/batches` / `GET /statements/batches/:id` — status +
  document list.
- `GET /statements/batches/:id/documents?status=NEEDS_REVIEW` — the review
  queue.
- `PATCH /statements/documents/:id` (`statement:review`) — staff correction
  of extracted fields or match.
- `POST /statements/documents/:id/confirm` (`statement:review`) — single
  confirm.
- `POST /statements/batches/:id/confirm-matched` (`statement:review`) —
  bulk-confirm every `MATCHED` document in one call.
- `POST /statements/documents/:id/reject` (`statement:review`).
- Confirming posts through §1.2's batch-capture internals (same service
  method, not the HTTP endpoint) so it's one transaction per batch of
  confirms, not N.
- **Confirm also backfills the matched field when it was empty** — if
  `matchedPropertyServiceId` was set by staff (not by an exact auto-match)
  because the scoped field was blank on that `PropertyService` (the `GAS`
  case above, and any one-off historical gap in the other kinds), write
  `extractedAccountRef` into that service's `accountNumber`/`meterNumber`
  as part of the confirm transaction. This is what makes the "first
  confirmation teaches the matcher" behavior in gap 3 above actually work,
  rather than requiring a separate manual data-entry pass.

### Abilities (new)

| Ability | Min role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `statement:ingest` | STAFF | upload a batch |
| `statement:review` | STAFF | correct/confirm/reject; same tier as `ledger:create` since confirming *is* capturing |

### Open questions

- **Clave catastral vs. predial** (gap 2 above) — get a real predial
  statement or Jorge's confirmation of whether `CLAVE` and `PREDIAL` are the
  same number before wiring the `PROPERTY_TAX` matcher. Blocks that one
  service kind, not the whole feature.
- **Telephone as a service kind** (gap 1 above) — confirm the backfill
  approach (one `PropertyService` row per populated `Property.phone1/2/3`)
  is correct, and whether a property with all three phones populated should
  really produce three separate billable "services," or whether phone
  billing is actually 1-per-property regardless of how many numbers are on
  file (would change the backfill to pick a primary number instead of
  fanning out to three rows).
- Multi-statement PDF splitting: does the source ever arrive as one PDF per
  customer already (simplifies to "batch = folder of PDFs"), or as one
  giant PDF per company per month that needs page-range splitting? Changes
  whether a page-boundary detector is needed at all.
- Retention: keep `StatementDocument.storageKey` (and the raw OCR text)
  indefinitely for audit, or purge after posting since `ServiceDocument`
  already holds the permanent copy? Recommend keep — cheap, and it's the
  audit trail for "why did the system think this was customer X."

---

## 3. Multi-bank chequera

> **BUILT — 2026-07-27.** Everything below is implemented and verified against
> the dev database and browser. `Bank` / `BankAccount` exist, every
> `BankTransaction` carries a required `bankAccountId`, and all 22,669 migrated
> rows were backfilled onto the Utilities/Scotiabank MXN account by
> `migration/backfill_bank_accounts.py` (now wired into `run_all.py`, both
> modes, ahead of `transform_bank.py`). Every read path in `bank.service.ts` is
> account-scoped — including both raw-SQL rollups in `summary()` and the
> previously-unfiltered `facets()`. `/banco` gained an account picker,
> `/banco/cuentas` manages banks and accounts under the new MANAGER
> `bank:manage-accounts` ability, and `/inicio`'s chequera card now names the
> account it is reading rather than implying a single register.
>
> **Verified end to end:** a second account (USD) was created through the API,
> a movement captured into it, and the MXN register's totals confirmed
> unchanged (22,669 movements, net 1,014,266.97) with zero cross-account leak
> in list/stats/facets/summary. Missing `bankAccountId` returns 400, unknown
> returns 404, capture into a closed account returns 400, and an attempt to
> PATCH an account's `currency` is rejected by DTO whitelisting. The test
> account was then deleted — the real Seguros bank is still the open question
> below, so nothing was left behind guessing at it.
>
> **Two deviations from the design below**, both tightening it:
> - `bank_transactions` also gained an `@@index([bankAccountId, transactionDate])`.
>   Every read is now filtered by account and ordered/grouped by date; without
>   it each of them is a full scan of the 22k-row table.
> - `UpdateBankAccountDto` deliberately has **no `currency` field**. The
>   movements already booked in an account are denominated in it, so editing it
>   would silently re-denominate history instead of converting it. Currency is
>   set once, at creation.
>
> Still open: which bank the Seguros USD account is actually at (see Open
> questions). Until that answer arrives the office has exactly one chequera and
> the UI behaves as it always did, just scoped explicitly.

### Motivation

Seguros uses a US bank account; Utilities uses a Mexican bank account. The
current `BankTransaction` model (migrated from `SCOTHIA.mdb`) has no bank or
currency dimension at all — it's a single implicit account, MXN-only, by
design (see `PLAN.md` migration step 7 finding (c)). Need to support more
than one register, each with its own bank and currency.

Confirmed against the actual code, not just the schema comment: this is a
real, deliberate, load-bearing assumption, not an oversight to patch around.
`migration/transform_bank.py` has no bank/currency column to read in the
first place — `DATOS I`/`DATOS E` are `fecha, tipo, num, concepto,
ingreso/egreso, operado, notas, cantidad_en_letra`, nothing else. And
`bank.service.ts`'s module doc-comment states outright: "SINGLE CURRENCY...
`bank_transactions` has none, and every `amountInWords` on the egreso side
is spelled out in PESOS. All figures in this module are MXN." Every method
in that file — `where()`, `totalsFor()`, `facets()`, `summary()`, `stats()`,
`createMovement()` — currently has zero notion of "which account." That's
the actual surface area this feature touches, itemized below.

### Data model changes

```prisma
model Bank {
  id       String        @id @default(uuid())
  name     String        @unique   // e.g. "Scotiabank", "Bank of America"
  country  String?                 // "MX" | "US" — informational
  accounts BankAccount[]

  @@map("banks")
}

/// One physical chequera. Currency is fixed per account (real bank
/// accounts don't mix currencies) — do NOT add a currency filter to
/// BankTransaction itself; it inherits the account's currency.
model BankAccount {
  id           String            @id @default(uuid())
  bankId       String
  bank         Bank              @relation(fields: [bankId], references: [id])
  label        String            // "Utilities operating (MXN)", "Seguros operating (USD)"
  currency     Currency
  businessLine TransactionDomain? // hint only, not enforced — a chequera can pay for more than one line
  active       Boolean           @default(true)
  movements    BankTransaction[]

  @@map("bank_accounts")
}
```

`BankTransaction` gains:

```prisma
model BankTransaction {
  // ...existing fields...
  bankAccountId String
  bankAccount   BankAccount @relation(fields: [bankAccountId], references: [id])
}
```

`bankAccountId` should be **required**, not optional — a bank movement
without a known account isn't meaningfully reconcilable. This means the
migration step below has to run before the column goes non-null.

### Migration of existing data

All 22,354 existing `BankTransaction` rows are SCOTHIA data — MXN, single
bank. Before making `bankAccountId` required:

1. Insert one `Bank` row for Scotiabank, one `BankAccount` row under it
   (`label: "Utilities — Scotiabank (MXN)"`, `currency: MXN`,
   `businessLine: UTILITY`).
2. Backfill every existing `BankTransaction.bankAccountId` to that account's
   id.
3. Add the second account (`"Seguros — <bank TBD> (USD)"`) — **needs the
   actual US bank name from Jorge**, plus whether historical Seguros bank
   data exists anywhere to migrate (the current inventory has no Seguros
   bank register file — only `SCOTHIA.mdb`, which is Utilities' own book,
   per `PLAN.md`'s source inventory). If no historical USD register exists,
   this account starts empty and only carries movements captured going
   forward.

The existing `@@unique([legacySourceTable, legacyId])` on `BankTransaction`
needs no change — every legacy row only ever belongs to the one Scotiabank
account being backfilled in step 2, so provenance uniqueness still holds
per-row regardless of how many accounts exist afterward.

### Code touch points (`bank.service.ts`, `bank.controller.ts`)

This module currently has **no filterable dimension at all** beyond
direction/cleared/date — every account-scoping change is additive, not a
rewrite, but it touches every read method because two of them
(`facets()`, `summary()`) bypass the Prisma query builder entirely and use
hand-written `$queryRaw` template SQL:

- **`where()`** — trivial, add `bankAccountId` to the `AND` array like any
  other filter (Prisma builder, same pattern as `direction`/`cleared`).
- **`totalsFor()`** — takes the already-built `where`, so it inherits the
  scoping for free once `list()`/`stats()` pass a scoped `where` in.
- **`facets()`** — currently `SELECT YEAR(transactionDate)... FROM
  bank_transactions WHERE voidedAt IS NULL` with no account clause at all;
  needs `AND bankAccountId = ${accountId}` interpolated into the raw SQL
  (parameterized, not string-concatenated — this file already uses Prisma's
  tagged-template `$queryRaw`, which parameterizes automatically as long as
  the account id is passed as a template value, not spliced into the string
  by hand).
- **`summary()`** — same issue, in *two* raw queries (the yearly rollup and
  the monthly rollup when a year is selected) — both need the same
  `AND bankAccountId = ${accountId}` clause. Miss one and the "Resumen"
  tab's year list and its drill-down would scope to different accounts,
  which is a worse bug than not scoping at all (looks correct, silently
  wrong).
- **`stats()`** — currently calls `totalsFor({})` (empty filter = every
  row). Needs `totalsFor({ bankAccountId })`; same for the `count`/`bounds`/
  `pending`/`transferred` aggregates alongside it.
- **`createMovement()` / `voidMovement()`** — `createMovement` needs
  `bankAccountId` added to the `data` object (from the new required DTO
  field below); `voidMovement` needs no change — it already operates by row
  `id`, and a voided row's account never changes.

### API surface changes

- `bank.controller.ts`: every route (`list`, `summary`, `stats`, `facets`)
  gains a required `?bankAccountId=` query param, threaded through to the
  service methods above. **Required, not optional with an "all accounts"
  default** — summing MXN and USD registers together would repeat the exact
  currency-collapsing mistake the billing module's header comment
  explicitly warns against (912 customers with both-currency ledgers).
  There is no meaningful "no account selected" state once accounts exist,
  only "no account selected *yet*" while the UI loads its default.
- New `bank/accounts` sub-resource: `GET /bank/accounts` (list, any
  authenticated user — the account picker needs this before anything else
  can render), `POST /bank/accounts` / `PATCH /bank/accounts/:id`
  (`bank:manage-accounts`, MANAGER — creating/editing accounts is rarer and
  higher-stakes than posting movements).
- `CreateBankMovementDto` gains a required `bankAccountId: string`.

### Web

- `bank/page.tsx`'s own doc-comment currently states "Single currency
  (MXN) — the source has no currency column" as a design fact; that
  comment (and the assumption behind it) needs to be removed/rewritten as
  part of this change, not just the UI.
- `/banco` gains an account selector (tabs or a dropdown) at the top,
  scoping both the "Movimientos" and "Resumen por periodo" tabs — mirrors
  how `/estado-cuenta` already scopes by currency without ever summing
  across it. Every existing call site in `lib/api.ts`
  (`listBankMovements`, `getBankStats`, `getBankSummary`, `getBankFacets`,
  `createBankMovement`) needs the new `bankAccountId` parameter threaded
  through, and `lib/types.ts`'s `CreateBankMovementInput` gains the field.
- New `/banco/cuentas` (or a section under `/catalogos`) for managing banks
  and accounts, gated the same way `/catalogos` already gates lookup
  management.

### Abilities (new)

| Ability | Min role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `bank:manage-accounts` | MANAGER | create/edit `Bank`/`BankAccount` rows |

### Open questions

- Confirm the actual US bank name/details for the Seguros account.
- Does Seguros have *any* historical bank register data to migrate, or does
  this start from zero on cutover?
- Should `businessLine` on `BankAccount` be enforced (a UTILITY account
  can't post an INSURANCE movement) or left as a soft hint? Recommend soft —
  the legacy single account already mixed concerns per `PLAN.md`'s finding
  that `TABLA RAMODOS` wasn't a clean business-line split.

---

## 4. Customer-number recycling

### Motivation

The physical folder system is organized by `Customer` number
(`DATGRAL.[NUM id]` in the legacy data, currently only preserved as a
`CustomerLegacyRef` string, not a first-class field). When a customer
cancels, doesn't renew, or goes a year with no activity, staff currently
*manually* hunt for such customers, purge their folder, and reuse the
number for a new customer. The ask: keep the physical-folder-compatible
sequential numbering, but automate the search for reusable numbers and
auto-assign the lowest free one at creation — a Claude Code equivalent of
"find the first empty spot."

### Data model changes

```prisma
model Customer {
  // ...existing fields...
  customerNumber   Int?      @unique   // the physical-folder number; null = not yet assigned (shouldn't happen post-migration) or released
  numberReleasedAt DateTime?           // non-null once the number has been freed for reuse; customerNumber is cleared at the same time (see below)
}

enum NumberReleaseReason {
  CANCELLED       // explicit non-renewal / service cancellation
  INACTIVITY      // >= 1 year with no ledger activity
  MANUAL
}

/// Audit trail for a recycled number, surviving the Customer row it came
/// from being archived/purged. customerId is nullable so history remains
/// readable even if the originating customer is later hard-deleted.
model CustomerNumberHistory {
  id             String               @id @default(uuid())
  customerNumber Int
  customerId     String?
  customer       Customer?            @relation(fields: [customerId], references: [id])
  assignedAt     DateTime
  releasedAt     DateTime?
  releaseReason  NumberReleaseReason?
  releasedById   String?

  @@index([customerNumber])
  @@map("customer_number_history")
}
```

### Backfill

At implementation time, backfill `customerNumber` from the existing
`CustomerLegacyRef` rows where `sourceSystem = "utilities" AND sourceTable =
"DATGRAL"` (the legacy `NUM id` — already migrated, just not promoted to a
first-class column). Insurance-only customers (no utilities `DATGRAL` row)
won't have a legacy number; decide at build time whether they get one
retroactively assigned or stay `null` until they need one (recommend: assign
one on demand, the first time anyone needs to give them a physical folder —
not retroactively for all 510 insurance-only customers at once).

**This backfill isn't a straight cast of every `legacyId` to `Int`.**
Checked against `migration/transform_customers.py`: for a utilities
`DATGRAL` row, `legacyId` is set to `nid or f"rownum_{len(customers)}"` —
`nid` is the real `NUM id` only when the source row actually had one;
**~140 utilities rows had a blank `NUM id`** (the same "blank name" data
quality issue the same script recovers names for) and got a synthetic
`rownum_N` placeholder instead, which is not a physical-folder number and
must not be cast into `customerNumber`. Insurance-side refs have the same
pattern (`insrow_N` placeholders). The backfill query needs an explicit
numeric filter (`legacyId REGEXP '^[0-9]+$'`, or equivalent), and every row
that fails it is exactly the "insurance-only or blank-`NUM id`" case that
falls through to on-demand assignment above, not an error to chase down.

`customers.service.ts`'s `list()`/`detail()` `select` blocks don't include
`customerNumber` today (only `name`, `nameSource`, contact fields, counts)
— it needs adding to both, plus to the `/clientes` list-page columns and
the customer detail header, since staff read this number constantly for
the physical folder. `list()`'s search (`where.OR`) already matches
`legacyRefs.some.legacyId.contains` as a fallback for finding someone by
their old number; once `customerNumber` is first-class, add a direct
`{ customerNumber: Number(query) }` branch when the query parses as an
integer, so a numeric search hits the fast indexed column instead of the
join.

### Eligibility detection (the automation)

This is explicitly framed as **surfacing candidates for staff review, not
auto-purging** — the actual release/reuse decision stays a human action,
matching how the office works today; only the *search* is automated.

- **New endpoint** `GET /customers/recycling-candidates` — customers where
  either:
  - `CANCELLED`: no active `Policy` (not archived, `policyTo` in the past
    with no renewal) **and** no active `PropertyService`, or
  - `INACTIVITY`: `MAX(Transaction.transactionDate)` across all their
    transactions is more than 1 year ago (or no transactions at all and
    `customerSince` is more than 1 year ago).
  
  This can be a plain query (no new job/queue needed — it's a read, not a
  mutation) run on-demand when staff open a "Clientes para reciclar" screen,
  the same way `/billing/balances` is computed live rather than
  materialized.
- **New endpoint** `POST /customers/:id/release-number`
  (`customer:recycle`, MANAGER). Body: `{ reason: NumberReleaseReason }`.
  - Closes the open `CustomerNumberHistory` row (`releasedAt = now,
    releaseReason, releasedById`).
  - Sets `Customer.customerNumber = null`, `numberReleasedAt = now`.
  - **Archives** the customer (`archivedAt = now`) — does **not** hard-delete
    or scrub PII by default. See the purge question below.

### Auto-assignment at creation

- **`customers.service.ts` create path**: before insert, compute
  `SELECT MIN(n) candidate FROM (SELECT customerNumber+1 AS n FROM
  customers) WHERE n NOT IN (SELECT customerNumber FROM customers WHERE
  customerNumber IS NOT NULL)` — i.e., the lowest positive integer not
  currently held by any customer (released numbers, being `NULL` again,
  automatically qualify; no separate "available pool" table needed, which
  keeps this consistent with "vacancy = not currently claimed" rather than
  a second source of truth that can drift). Simplify at build time with
  whatever the DB makes cheapest (a gaps-and-islands query, or maintaining a
  running `MAX` + a small released-numbers cache — pick based on real
  customer-count scale, which is ~1,700, trivially small for a live scan).
  Open a new `CustomerNumberHistory` row (`assignedAt = now`) for the new
  assignment.
- **Concurrency**: `customers.service.ts`'s `create()` today is a single
  unguarded `prisma.customer.create()` — no transaction, no locking, which
  is fine for arbitrary fields but not for a "pick the lowest unclaimed
  integer" computation, where two staff creating a customer at the same
  moment can both compute the same candidate number before either insert
  lands. The `customerNumber` unique constraint turns that race into a
  Prisma unique-violation error rather than silent data corruption, but the
  create path needs to actually handle it — wrap the compute-and-insert in
  a `prisma.$transaction` and retry once on a unique-constraint failure
  (catch `P2002` on `customerNumber`, recompute, re-insert), rather than
  letting the second staff member's creation just fail.
- **Web**: `/clientes/nuevo` (`CustomerForm.tsx`) shows the assigned number
  as soon as the form loads (read-only, "Número de cliente: 214
  (reciclado)" if it's a reused slot, so staff know to expect the old
  physical folder) — server-assigns it on submit, doesn't let staff type an
  arbitrary one, which is what prevents the collisions manual assignment
  risks today. `CreateCustomerDto` deliberately gains **no** `customerNumber`
  field — the whole point is the client can't set it.

### The purge question — needs Jorge's decision

The office's paper-world habit is literally "purge their history, info,
etc." when recycling a folder. This codebase's established convention is
the opposite — **never hard-delete migrated/business data**, only archive
(`archivedAt`), specifically so mistakes are reversible and there's always
an audit trail (see `Customer.archivedAt`, `Policy.archivedAt`,
`Property.archivedAt`, and the `OpsJob`/`ActivityLog` audit models already
in the schema).

Recommend: **archive by default, never hard-delete.** The `customerNumber`
release already solves the actual operational need (the number is free to
reuse); keeping the old customer's data around under a freed number costs
nothing and preserves history for the inevitable case where "definitely
cancelled" turns out to be wrong. If Jorge specifically wants literal
data purge (e.g. for a data-retention/privacy policy reason, not just
paper-world habit), that should be a **separate, explicit, `ADMIN`-only**
action (`customer:purge`) taken well after release — not bundled into
`release-number` — so the two decisions ("this number is reusable" vs.
"permanently destroy this person's records") aren't accidentally coupled.

### Abilities (new)

| Ability | Min role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `customer:recycle` | MANAGER | flag a candidate reviewed, release their number, archive the record |
| `customer:purge` | ADMIN | **only if** Jorge wants literal PII destruction, kept separate from release |

### Open questions

- Confirm the "1 year of no activity" clock: measured from last
  `Transaction.transactionDate`, or should a customer with an *expired but
  never-renewed* policy count as cancelled immediately rather than waiting
  out the year? (Spec above treats these as two independent triggers,
  `CANCELLED` vs. `INACTIVITY` — confirm that's the right split.)
- Does Jorge want true data purge at all, or is archive-and-hide
  sufficient? (See above — recommend archive-only unless there's a
  compliance reason for real deletion.)
- Should insurance-only customers (no legacy `NUM id`) share the same
  numbering sequence as utilities customers, or get their own? Recommend
  one shared sequence — it's one physical-folder system per the notes, not
  two.

---

## Build sequencing

1. **§1.1 + §1.2 + §1.3 (receipt capture completion)** — smallest, builds
   directly on existing `billing/` code, no new tables. Ship first; it's
   also a prerequisite for §2.
2. **§4 (customer-number recycling)** — independent of the others,
   touches `customers/` only. Can be built in parallel with §1.
3. **§3 (multi-bank chequera)** — independent of §1/§2, touches `bank/`
   only. Needs the US bank name from Jorge before the migration step can
   run; the schema/API work can start before that answer arrives.
4. **§2 (PDF/OCR auto-capture)** — largest, depends on §1 being done (it
   posts through the batch-capture path) and on the OCR-provider decision.
   Build last, and prototype the extraction accuracy against a handful of
   real CFE statements before committing to the provider choice.

## Open questions to take back to Jorge (collected)

- ~~OCR provider/budget for §2~~ — **CLOSED**: self-hosted Tesseract, chosen on
  measured accuracy against real scans (see §2's BUILT note). No per-page cost.
- ~~Whether source PDFs arrive pre-split per customer or bundled~~ —
  **CLOSED**: bundled, one customer per page. Split per page.
- ~~Whether "Clave Catastral" and the `PREDIAL`-sourced
  `PROPERTY_TAX.accountNumber` are the same number~~ — **CLOSED**: they are
  different. `clave` is the cadastral key and is now on
  `Property.cadastralKey`; `predial` is not unique and is not printed on
  statements.
- ~~Whether phone billing is one service per number or one per property~~ —
  **CLOSED**: effectively one (534 / 18 / 1 across phone1/2/3), backfilled
  from `phone1`.
- **Still open (§2):** whether the CFE amount staff should owe is the rounded
  headline (`$268`, what the barcode encodes and what is paid at the window) or
  the exact `Total` in the breakdown (`$268.88`). The parser currently takes
  the barcode figure, which matches what the office actually pays; worth one
  confirmation from Jorge.
- The actual bank name/currency/details for the Seguros USD account, and
  whether any historical Seguros bank data exists to migrate (§3).
- Whether `BankAccount.businessLine` should be enforced or a soft hint
  (§3).
- The exact "1 year inactivity" / "cancelled" recycling triggers (§4).
- Whether customer-number recycling should ever include *true* data purge,
  or archive-and-reuse-the-number is sufficient (§4).
