Bryce
74a070e545
The report implied the shared-payment problem was solved. Measuring the whole database shows it is solved for refunds, payouts and shifts, and 1.6% solved for card payments: refunds 51,986 scoped · 0 unscoped payouts 144,652 scoped · 0 unscoped · 36 with no owner cash-drawer shifts 69,291 scoped · 0 unscoped card payments 259,763 scoped · 14,241,890 unscoped · 2,122,161 no owner Sampling 2% of the orders belonging to every client that has ever contended found 12,954 payments still owned by two orders, extrapolating to roughly 650,000 across that population. So the balance figures are what the calculation fixes are worth on data where the sharing had been resolved for the clients and period measured — not a claim that the database is clean. The report now says so, and the headline stat that claimed zero shared payments has been replaced with the 1.6% actually renamed. Records what finishing requires: renaming is driven from orders, so it means walking all 19,040,296 of them rather than the clients that look shared today, since nine pairs contended in the past without sharing a location now. Measured at ~15,000 orders/hour once the 29 GB database stopped fitting in memory — the same code did 267,012 in 100 seconds with a warm cache — so it belongs in a maintenance window on sized hardware. It is resumable and a second pass is a no-op. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>