---
id: ADR-ACC-TRX-009
title: Cutoff-Aware Receivable Facts and Aging
product_area: accounting
module: transactions
revision: 1
status: proposed
design_intent: confirmed
source_sha:
  services-accounting: f47cb263875bbc0c5640fba7dae6785ec32695f8
  react-console: baf6dae382d6f41dce976c7f848667ccc37e076f
decision: >-
  Receivable movements retain effective dates and recording times so customer
  summaries and historical aging can use a defined knowledge cutoff.
constrains:
  - DOM-ACC-TRX-005
  - DOM-ACC-TRX-006
  - STATE-ACC-TRX-013
  - WF-ACC-TRX-015
  - SVC-ACC-TRX-transactions
origin: >-
  The snapshot architecture approved by Andrew on 2026-10-15 and Andrew’s
  2026-10-17 rule that application code never writes the snapshot:
  services-accounting:docs/snapshots/ar-aging.md#The A/R Aging Snapshot
  (`accounting.ar_aging`)
alternatives:
  - option: Read current balances to answer historical aging.
    why_not: >-
      Current state cannot reproduce what was known at the earlier month-end
      cutoff.
  - option: Have financial commands maintain an independent monthly balance record.
    why_not: >-
      A second maintained truth could diverge from the financial documents and
      their facts.
consequences:
  - >-
    Facts learned after a captured cutoff are excluded from that capture even if
    they have an earlier effective date.
  - >-
    Operator rerun and backfill requests create new versions while retaining
    earlier published results.
  - >-
    The current snapshot representation uses major units and still requires
    alignment with the recorded money direction.
supersedes: []
evidence:
  - >-
    services-accounting at f47cb263: docs/snapshots/ar-aging.md;
    docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/06-integrity-model.md §5.
---
# Cutoff-Aware Receivable Facts and Aging

## Context

Historical reports need to distinguish when money affected debt from when Accounting learned about it. Snapshot publication retains a reproducible capture of that evidence.

## 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.