same-source-twice

Same source twice

A payout integration assumes "amount is in minor units, divide by 100". Three sources agree: the payouts page ("e.g. 1000 = 10.00 EUR"), the SDK docstring, the integration guide. All three copy the payouts page; the Currencies page listing zero-decimal currencies was never cited. When JPY is enabled later, 5,000 yen arrives as amount: 5000 and is booked as 50 yen, and every JPY payout is booked at 1/100.

Copied is not corroborated. Same origin, one vote; and one vote must come from the real system.

Part A — Ask (paste after your ticket)

For each premise, list its sources as: ref | origin | doc or system.
Origin is the page or system the text or value first came from, not where you read it.
Mark critical any premise that decides an amount, a destination or a deletion.
A critical premise is confirmed only with two different origins, one of them system output
(a sandbox call, a recorded response or a query) on the case most likely to differ.
If the system can't be checked safely, say so and name who must accept the risk.
Until then, don't start tasks that need it. Reply:
BLOCKED: critical premise has one origin | found: <premise, sources, origin> | need: <the system check>

In an orchestrated flow (spec → plan → tasks → implement): add origin and doc/system columns to the premise table in the plan; mark critical premises in the spec; make the system check a small first task and save its output next to the plan.

Part B — Check (you do this)

corroborate.py has no dependencies. Put the premises in JSON (see plan.example.json):

python3 corroborate.py plan.json       # every premise
python3 corroborate.py plan.json P1    # one; exit 0 passes, 1 blocked or unknown id

On the example: P1: BLOCKED: critical premise has one origin | found: P1: 3 source(s), origin: payouts page | need: a source with a different origin. Add one system source (a sandbox JPY payout) and P1 passes. If the system can't be checked safely, "risk_accepted_by": "<name>" records who accepted the risk.