transaction-deduplicator

Transaction Deduplicator

Table of Contents

• Overview
• Input contract
• The dedupe key
• Workflow
• Near-duplicate handling
• Output contract
• Guardrails

Overview

Statement drops often overlap. A January statement covers December 15 → January 14; the December statement covers November 15 → December 14; the same December 15 transaction appears in both. This skill identifies those duplicates without losing legitimate same-day same-amount same-merchant repeat charges (e.g., two coffees in one day).

Input contract

The caller provides:

• incoming — array of newly extracted transactions: {date, post_date, account_id, amount_cents, description_raw, source}.
• existing — array of transactions already in the store with the same fields plus id.

The dedupe key

A duplicate is identified by the tuple:

(account_id, abs(amount_cents), description_normalized, |date_a - date_b| <= 1 day)

• description_normalized uses the same normalization as the categorizer (uppercase, strip vendor codes, strip geo, collapse spaces, drop dates).
• The 1-day window absorbs date vs post_date mismatches between two sources.
• abs(amount_cents) allows a refund matched against the original purchase to NOT be considered a duplicate (different sign). The composite key uses signed amount.

Use signed amount_cents. Refunds (opposite sign) are never duplicates of purchases.

Workflow

Dedupe Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Index existing transactions by (account_id, signed_amount, normalized_desc)
- [ ] Step 2: For each incoming, look up the index
- [ ] Step 3: Filter index hits by date proximity (≤ 1 day)
- [ ] Step 4: If no hit, mark as new
- [ ] Step 5: If exactly one hit, mark as duplicate of that id
- [ ] Step 6: If multiple hits, run the multi-instance same-day rule
- [ ] Step 7: Surface near-duplicates (different amount or desc) for review

Step 1 — Index

Build existing_by_key[(account_id, amount_cents, description_normalized)] = [tx, …].

Step 2 — Lookup

For each incoming transaction, compute its key tuple and look up the bucket.

Step 3 — Date proximity filter

For each candidate in the bucket, keep only those with |incoming.date − candidate.date| ≤ 1 day. Use min(date, post_date) on each side if post_date exists.

Step 4 — No hit

Mark decision: "new". The bookkeeper will append it to transactions.json.

Step 5 — Exactly one hit

Mark decision: "duplicate" and link duplicate_of: <existing_id>. Do not import.

Step 6 — Multiple hits (legitimate same-day repeats)

When the existing store already has N transactions with the identical key on the same day, and the incoming batch contains M transactions with the same key on that day:

• If M ≤ N → all incoming considered duplicates of existing ones (1:1 pairing in date order).
• If M > N → the first N incoming are duplicates; the remaining M − N are new transactions (legitimate same-day repeat charges, e.g., two coffees, gas-station pre-auth + final).

This rule preserves real repeat charges while still suppressing overlap-import duplicates.

Step 7 — Near-duplicate review

A near-duplicate shares everything except amount or description and is within 1 day. These commonly arise when:

• A pending charge ($45.00) finalizes at a slightly different amount ($45.83) — keep the final, drop the pending.
• The merchant string changes mid-cycle ("AMAZON.COM*ABC123" → "AMZN Mktp US").

Emit these to review[] with both records side-by-side and a suggested action: keep_incoming_drop_existing | keep_existing_drop_incoming | keep_both | merge.

Near-duplicate handling

Compute a similarity score on near-misses:

• Amount delta: 1.0 if equal, 0.9 if within $1 or 2%, 0.5 if within $5 or 10%, else 0.0.
• Description Jaccard on token sets: 0.0–1.0.
• Date proximity: 1.0 same day, 0.7 within 1 day, 0.4 within 3 days.

near_dup_score = 0.4*amount + 0.4*description + 0.2*date.

Surface for review when 0.7 ≤ near_dup_score < 0.95. Above 0.95 is treated as duplicate; below 0.7 is treated as independent.

Output contract

{
  "new": [
    { "id": "tx_20260115_017", "decision": "new" }
  ],
  "duplicates": [
    {
      "incoming_index": 4,
      "decision": "duplicate",
      "duplicate_of": "tx_20251220_003",
      "reason": "exact key match within 1 day window"
    }
  ],
  "review": [
    {
      "incoming_index": 12,
      "matched_existing_id": "tx_20260108_005",
      "near_dup_score": 0.86,
      "diff": {
        "amount_cents": [-4500, -4583],
        "description_raw": ["AMAZON PENDING", "AMZN MKTP US*AB12CD"]
      },
      "suggested_action": "keep_incoming_drop_existing",
      "rationale": "incoming is the finalized charge (post_date set, definite merchant code)"
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "incoming_total": 142,
    "new_count": 96,
    "duplicate_count": 44,
    "review_count": 2
  }
}

Guardrails

• Sign matters. Never collapse a refund and a purchase by absolute value. Use signed amount in the key.
• One-day window only. Wider windows produce false positives across pay cycles.
• Same-account only. Never dedupe across accounts. A $50 transfer out of checking and a $50 deposit into savings are two records, not one duplicate.
• Preserve raw description in review. Show both description_raw strings to the human; do not show the normalized form.
• Idempotency. Running the dedupe on the same input twice produces the same output. The skill never mutates existing.
• Audit. For every suppressed duplicate, log duplicate_of so the user can trace why a transaction did not appear in the new import.