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>
rmancinasandClaude Opus 4.8
81f62430b3