---
id: ADR-ACC-TRX-006
title: Scoped Financial Retries and Communication Deduplication
product_area: accounting
module: transactions
revision: 1
status: proposed
design_intent: confirmed
source_sha:
  services-accounting: f47cb263875bbc0c5640fba7dae6785ec32695f8
  react-console: baf6dae382d6f41dce976c7f848667ccc37e076f
decision: >-
  Scoped financial retry keys retain request identity and response, supplemented
  by declared document uniqueness, while invoice delivery deduplicates through
  its communication submission.
constrains:
  - DOM-ACC-TRX-006
  - SVC-ACC-TRX-transactions
  - WF-ACC-TRX-008
  - WF-ACC-TRX-010
  - WF-ACC-TRX-012
origin: >-
  Andrew’s D-01 (a service-wide idempotency ledger):
  services-accounting:docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/02-decisions.md#D-01
  Strategy
alternatives:
  - option: Assume callers will avoid repeated requests.
    why_not: >-
      Network recovery and worker retries require the service to protect the
      financial effect.
  - option: Depend entirely on document-table keys.
    why_not: >-
      Coordinated operations need a request-level result spanning their
      component records.
consequences:
  - >-
    Matching financial retries return the recorded response, altered bodies are
    refused and rolled-back work leaves its uncompleted key available.
  - >-
    Coordinated steps derive keys from the operation to preserve their
    identities across retries.
  - >-
    Definite collection or settlement failure can release request ownership for
    another retained attempt.
supersedes: []
evidence:
  - >-
    services-accounting at f47cb263:
    docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/02-decisions.md, 05-lifecycles.md,
    06-integrity-model.md.
---
# Scoped Financial Retries and Communication Deduplication

## Context

The same user action may be submitted again after an uncertain network response. Financial commands and communication delivery use different deduplication mechanisms.

## Decision

The structured decision records the governing boundary and its observed limits. Its origin distinguishes Andrew’s rulings from reversible implementation choices and proposed publication policy.

## Alternatives Considered

The listed alternatives explain the competing responsibility or recovery approaches and why the recorded direction differs. They are explanatory comparisons, without evidence of a separate approval discussion for each alternative.

## Consequences

The consequence rows identify implementation obligations, current departures and gaps requiring further verification. Artifact status remains proposed until Andrew approves it.