---
id: ADR-ACC-TRX-010
title: Acknowledgement Before Commerce Receiver Configuration
product_area: accounting
module: transactions
revision: 1
status: proposed
design_intent: proposed
source_sha:
  services-accounting: f47cb263875bbc0c5640fba7dae6785ec32695f8
  react-console: baf6dae382d6f41dce976c7f848667ccc37e076f
decision: >-
  The configured Commerce fact handler sends captured financial events, while an
  absent receiver logs and acknowledges the batch; reconstruction data exists
  but an implemented Commerce rebuild is not established.
constrains:
  - WF-ACC-TRX-014
  - SVC-ACC-TRX-transactions
  - RESP-ACC
origin: >-
  Build decision M4-2, reversible and not Andrew’s:
  services-accounting:docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/02-decisions.md#2.4
  Service calls, events and integrations (milestone 4)
alternatives:
  - option: Reject every event until a receiver is configured.
    why_not: >-
      The recorded build choice avoids accumulating unattended dead-letter work
      during receiver absence.
  - option: Call Commerce synchronously from financial commands.
    why_not: >-
      Billing and collection would then depend directly on Commerce
      availability.
consequences:
  - >-
    Absent receiver configuration prevents live Commerce delivery through this
    handler while allowing Accounting's event work to complete.
  - >-
    Connecting the consumer requires a separately verified reconstruction and
    agreement check against the supplied financial-position data.
supersedes: []
evidence:
  - >-
    services-accounting at f47cb263:
    modules/transactions/services/change-events/commerce-financial-facts.ts;
    aws/accounting.change-events.ts.
---
# Acknowledgement Before Commerce Receiver Configuration

## Context

Accounting’s outbound handler exists before a configured consumer. This is a reversible build choice with proposed intent, rather than a confirmed product direction.

## 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.