rmancinasandClaude Opus 4.8
81f62430b3
Add migration/reconcile.py (reads staged Parquet) and the generated migration/RECONCILIATION.md. Naive full-row matching across the suspected "duplicate" groups gives a misleading ~0 overlap, so each group is probed on a deliberate business key instead. The evidence overturns all three of the plan's original assumptions: - EFECTIVO vs EFECTIVO_BACKUP: NOT a live/backup pair. `folio` is a per-table sequential number that collides (12,363 shared folio numbers, every one a different transaction); real business-key (cl,fecha,monto,conepto) overlap is 2. Near-disjoint ledgers (BACKUP ~2017-2022, EFECTIVO recent). Rule: migrate both, keyed by (source_table, folio) provenance, no folio de-dup, don't drop BACKUP. FM3 tables are a separate fee/tax/multa stream. - datos2 vs FEE ANUAL vs fee15: disjoint billing runs from different periods (2025-26 / 2018 / 2017), zero real-identity overlap. Rule: union all three, no de-dup; keep datos2.due_date. - DATGRAL vs COBRO3: COBRO3.fee is a constant 75 (a charge batch), not a filtered customer snapshot; every num_id already in DATGRAL. Rule: DATGRAL is the sole customer master, COBRO3 contributes zero customers. Also flags monedas currency variants (PESOS/Pesos/DOLLARS) for normalization at transform time. Update PLAN.md (migration step 2 outcome + corrected inventory bullets) and RESUME.md (queue: reconciliation done, transform+load next). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>