cadrumo.application.ledger.regime_contradiction module

Turning a self-contradicting document into a finding the confirm gate refuses past.

The consumer of the legend axis’s contradicted outcome. That axis (derive_category_from_regime_legend()) decides whether the regime an issuer printed in words agrees with the tax the document charged; this module does no deciding of its own. It reads the outcome as data and enrols it, which is the whole reason the axis returns a typed record rather than a category or None.

Why the judgement is not repeated here. The statutory expectation lives on RegimeLegend as expects_repercutido_line, exactly so one place decides what a mention implies. Re-testing that here would make two authorities on the same question, and the second would drift the moment the regulation’s encoding changed – the failure the legend table was introduced to close. The axis also deliberately withholds the category on a contradiction, so this module could not accidentally use the declared value even if it tried.

Why it blocks rather than warns. A contradicted document is wrong under every reading available: either the mention was printed in error or the tax was charged in error, and those lead to different declarations. That is unlike a doubtful figure, where the document says one thing and the confidence in reading it is what varies. Confirming past it silently picks a side, and the side picked determines whether output IVA is declared at all.

What is deliberately NOT decided here. Which half is wrong. The finding names the conflict and stops; the operator holds the document and is the only party who can say whether the mention or the line does not belong.

See also

derive_category_from_regime_legend()

The axis whose contradicted outcome this enrols.

BLOCKING_REASON_BY_DISCREPANCY_KIND

Where the finding’s kind becomes a review-gate refusal.

closure_findings()

The arithmetic siblings this finding sits beside, and is not one of.

draft_prints_a_repercutido_line(draft)

Whether the document charged Spanish output IVA on its face.

A charged cuota is the decisive signal, and a stated positive rate is taken as one too: a document printing “IVA 21%” beside a reverse-charge mention contradicts itself whether or not the cuota was legible.

Zero is deliberately not a repercutido line. A reverse-charge or exempt invoice may legitimately print a zero rate or a zero cuota to show that no tax was charged, and reading that as tax charged would turn the ordinary presentation of the very regimes this checks into a contradiction – firing on exactly the documents it exists to respect.

Parameters:

draft (InvoiceDraft) – The draft carrying the figures the document stated.

Return type:

bool

Returns:

True when the document states positive output IVA.

regime_contradiction_finding(draft, *, legends)

Return the finding a self-contradicting document raises, or None.

Deterministic and total: the same draft always yields the same answer, and None means the document did not contradict itself on this axis – never that its regime is correct, because a document printing no mandated mention states no regime to check.

Parameters:

• draft (InvoiceDraft) – The draft to check, carrying the transcribed mention and the tax figures the document stated.

• legends (tuple[RegimeLegend, ...]) – The dated registry declarations selected by the enclosing pinned authority operation.

Return type:

DraftDiscrepancyFinding | None

Returns:

A DraftDiscrepancyFinding when the printed mention and the charged tax cannot both be true, else None.