diff --git a/prisma/migrations/0026_precutover_credits_orders/migration.sql b/prisma/migrations/0026_precutover_credits_orders/migration.sql
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c058256
--- /dev/null
+++ b/prisma/migrations/0026_precutover_credits_orders/migration.sql
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+-- Let credits-funded orders exist before the cutover.
+--
+-- `chk_ingested_orders_after_cutover` (migration 0018) refused any row with
+-- payment_method = 'credits' dated before 2026-01-09. It was written as a
+-- database-level guard for invariant I1, whose stated reason was splits:
+-- before the cutover, shared expenses lived in SplitMyExpenses, and
+-- re-importing them would double-charge Sonu against carryover transaction
+-- 2348.
+--
+-- That reason no longer holds. Since finance-app 788219b, ACTIVE_OBLIGATION is
+-- `ts.settled = false AND t.transaction_date >= '2026-01-09'`, so a split on a
+-- pre-cutover transaction cannot assert a debt at all. The guard now blocks
+-- something it was never aimed at: the orders themselves, which are ordinary
+-- historical spend. 275 of them — $9,799.96 of meals and rides across
+-- 2020-2025 — were invisible because the receipt was the only record and the
+-- money came from a gift-card balance rather than a card.
+--
+-- What is NOT resolved, and is accepted deliberately (user, 2026-07-28): some
+-- of those orders were funded by ShopBack gift cards that are themselves
+-- recorded as expenses, so that portion is counted twice. The exposure is
+-- bounded at $3,411.16 (14 loads) and is probably smaller, because the
+-- descriptors name no brand — "ShopBack Gift Cards SQ" is a batch code, and
+-- the card could be Amazon, Airbnb or Shell as easily as DoorDash. Six are
+-- categorised `gifts` and may be real presents rather than self-funding.
+-- Reclassifying them on a guess would corrupt correct data to fix a
+-- double-count that cannot be demonstrated, so they are left alone; only the
+-- ShopBack purchase emails can settle it, joined on total paid.
+--
+-- The split guard is untouched: this changes what may exist, not what may be
+-- owed.
+ALTER TABLE transactions DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS chk_ingested_orders_after_cutover;
diff --git a/src/__tests__/integration/order-ingestion.test.ts b/src/__tests__/integration/order-ingestion.test.ts
index 321b149..3507d7a 100644
--- a/src/__tests__/integration/order-ingestion.test.ts
+++ b/src/__tests__/integration/order-ingestion.test.ts
@@ -182,16 +182,38 @@ describe("Order ingestion — invariants", () => {
     expect(Number(n!.c)).toBe(1);
   });
 
-  it("I1: a credits order before the cutover is refused", async () => {
+  it("I1 retired: a credits order before the cutover is recorded, not refused", async () => {
+    // I1 used to store nothing at all for these — no transaction and no
+    // metadata — so the receipt was discarded. Its reason was splits (shared
+    // expenses lived in SplitMyExpenses before 2026-01-09), and that expired
+    // when ACTIVE_OBLIGATION gained its date bound: a pre-cutover split can no
+    // longer assert a debt, so a pre-cutover order cannot move a balance
+    // however it is recorded. All it was still doing was hiding history.
     const p = parseOrderHTML(html("dd-01"), meta({ receivedAt: "2025-11-15T12:00:00Z" }));
     const res = await processOrderIngestion(p);
-    expect(res.skipped).toBe("pre_cutover");
-    expect(res.transactionId).toBeNull();
-    await expect(
-      queryRaw(
-        `INSERT INTO transactions (transaction_date, amount, payment_method) VALUES ('2025-11-15', 20.00, 'credits')`
-      )
-    ).rejects.toThrow();
+    expect(res.skipped).toBeUndefined();
+    expect(res.transactionId).not.toBeNull();
+    expect(res.flags).toContain("pre_cutover_credits_order");
+
+    const txn = await queryRow<{ transaction_date: string; payment_method: string; amount: string }>(
+      `SELECT transaction_date::text, payment_method, amount::text
+         FROM transactions WHERE id = $1`,
+      [res.transactionId]
+    );
+    expect(txn!.transaction_date).toBe("2025-11-15");
+    expect(txn!.payment_method).toBe("credits");
+  });
+
+  it("a pre-cutover order still creates no split, so no balance moves", async () => {
+    // The whole safety argument for retiring I1. Ingestion writes no splits at
+    // any date; if that ever changes, this fails before a balance does.
+    const p = parseOrderHTML(html("dd-01"), meta({ receivedAt: "2025-11-15T12:00:00Z", messageId: "pre-cut-2" }));
+    const res = await processOrderIngestion(p);
+    const n = await queryRow<{ c: string }>(
+      `SELECT count(*)::text c FROM transaction_splits WHERE transaction_id = $1`,
+      [res.transactionId]
+    );
+    expect(Number(n!.c)).toBe(0);
   });
 
   it("I11: a [Family] order records provenance and creates no transaction", async () => {
diff --git a/src/lib/order-ingestion.ts b/src/lib/order-ingestion.ts
index 2fd59c1..e60e4ab 100644
--- a/src/lib/order-ingestion.ts
+++ b/src/lib/order-ingestion.ts
@@ -171,9 +171,29 @@ export async function processOrderIngestion(
     creditsAmount = order.payment.credits_amount;
   }
 
-  // ---- I1: cutover --------------------------------------------------------
+  // ---- I1: cutover (retired 2026-07-28) -----------------------------------
+  //
+  // This used to return early for any credits order dated before the cutover,
+  // storing NOTHING — no transaction and no metadata, so the receipt was
+  // discarded entirely.
+  //
+  // Its reason was splits, not spend: before 2026-01-09 shared expenses lived
+  // in SplitMyExpenses, and re-importing them would double-charge against
+  // carryover transaction 2348. That reason expired with 788219b, where
+  // ACTIVE_OBLIGATION became `settled = false AND transaction_date >=
+  // '2026-01-09'` — a pre-cutover split can no longer assert a debt, so a
+  // pre-cutover order cannot move a balance however it is recorded.
+  //
+  // What it was left doing was hiding ordinary history: 275 orders, $9,799.96
+  // of meals and rides across 2020-2025, invisible purely because they were
+  // paid from a gift-card balance instead of a card. Ingestion still writes no
+  // splits at all, so nothing here touches what anyone owes.
+  //
+  // The known imprecision is on the funding side and is accepted rather than
+  // guessed at — see migration 0026 for why the ShopBack loads are left as
+  // they are.
   if (creditsAmount !== null && day < CUTOVER_DATE) {
-    return { transactionId: null, metadataId: null, flags, skipped: "pre_cutover" };
+    flags.push("pre_cutover_credits_order");
   }
 
   // ---- I6 / I5 ------------------------------------------------------------