Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
rmancinasandClaude Opus 5 872a661051 docs: document policy OCR capture, the feature no spec proposed
Policy OCR shipped 2026-08-01 (5e9cb12) and was documented nowhere. It is
not in INSURANCE_FEATURES_SPEC.md because it did not come from that
meeting — it came out of building the utility statement OCR pipeline in
RECEIPT_CAPTURE_SPEC.md §2 and noticing the same shape fits carrier
policy PDFs. A reader had no way to find that lineage.

New docs/POLICY_OCR.md covers it end to end, with weight on the three
things that are not obvious from the statement side:

- **One PDF = one policy.** Statements arrive bundled one customer per
  page, so there a page is a document. A GMX certificate is one policy
  across two pages, so the pages are concatenated and the parser runs
  once per file — which is why `pageNumber` is a file ordinal and
  `storageKey` is the source PDF, not a page image.
- **The GMX certificate carries no premium at all** — it lives on a
  separate recibo PDF. Hence the null-preserving confirm and the
  double-gated ledger write.
- **OcrModule was extracted out of StatementsModule to make this
  possible**, and that was blocking rather than cosmetic.

Cross-referenced from RECEIPT_CAPTURE_SPEC.md §2 (where it came from),
INSURANCE_FEATURES_SPEC.md (which never proposed it, and whose §4 carrier
API it partly overlaps), PLAN.md step 11, README and RESUME.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 12:56:25 -07:00
rmancinasandClaude Opus 5 6331481f82 docs: record notificaciones as built, flags global, schedules editable
The docs still described the state before the last five commits: the
insurance spec called for a `@Cron` literal and a manual mark-as-sent
mutation, PLAN.md had step 12 as "NOT STARTED", and README's module and
route lists predated seven modules.

- MASS_EMAIL_NOTIFICATIONS.md: new "Send flags", "API surface" and
  "Scheduled runs" sections; "Cron (future)" removed — it exists. The
  flags table says which flags apply where, and why a debug renewal send
  must skip both the RenewalNotice row and `lastSuccessfulAt`.
- INSURANCE_FEATURES_SPEC.md: §1 BUILT note listing the three places the
  build diverged from the spec; §1.1 and §1.4 marked superseded in place
  rather than deleted, so the reasoning stays readable.
- PLAN.md: step 12 renewal emails DONE with the divergences; status
  paragraph rewritten.
- README.md: current module/route lists, plus a "Scheduled jobs" section —
  a reader cloning this repo had no way to know the API sends mail on a
  timer.
- DEPLOY_AND_MIGRATIONS.md: the cadence lives in app_settings and survives
  an image rollback, and the servicios sweep has no multi-replica lock.
- RESUME.md: session record for the whole notificaciones arc.
- RENEWAL_NOTICES.md: pointer that this is the legacy record, not what
  shipped.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 12:43:19 -07:00
rmancinasandClaude Opus 5 26a4faa33e docs(insurance): spec renewal emails, liquidación batch, certificate, carrier APIs
Companion to docs/RECEIPT_CAPTURE_SPEC.md — the insurance half of the
2026-07-25/26 meeting. Documentation only; no application code.

Verified against the code and a live query of the dev DB rather than
designed from the meeting notes alone, which changed several conclusions:

- Renewal emails and the liquidación batch are much smaller than they
  look. RenewalNotice + its @@unique([policyId, generation]) idempotency
  key and the aviso-renovacion letter body already exist; the per-policy
  liquidation fields are wired end to end. What's missing is a scheduler,
  a mail client, and the batch layer.
- Carrier research: ANA and GMX are one company (Grupo Valore). ANA
  exposes a live SOAP service with a published operation list; GMX
  publishes no machine interface at all. Every ANA operation serves
  new-business quoting/issuance, not "list my book" — so the direction
  question decides whether the feature is buildable.
- UTILSEG is unusable for Utilities↔Seguros reconciliation and the spec
  closes that long-standing open question: DATGRAL.[NUM UTIL] is
  authoritative (name match 298/563 vs 58/1024), and where the two
  sources overlap they contradict on 170 of 218 shared ids.

Also records two live defects found while verifying: policy_types is
missing its INCENDIO and M_EMPR rows (the FK is ON DELETE SET NULL, so 5
m_empr policies silently lost their ramo), and the legacy settlement
slots don't match the target model (MULT/INCENDIO carry two, M EMPR
carries four, Policy collapses to one).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-27 21:54:23 -07:00