The loan is a separate ledger, not a settlement context: a contribution must
never be able to settle a dinner.
The share is fixed at 50%, not derived from actual payments. During Sonu's leave
the obligation did not change, only the payment did - a percentage-of-actual
model would silently redefine her share as 30% and make the shortfall vanish. So
the model needs an expected schedule alongside actual contributions, with the
difference as a tracked receivable. Currently $4,000.00 over Jul 2025 - Jun 2026.
On interest: recorded the mechanics (it is debited to the loan and repaid as part
of the balance - the reconciliation is exact) alongside the counter-argument that
$16,523.64 left and bought nothing, which is what an expense is. Recommends
keeping it as spend with a fixed/discretionary grouping to address the real
concern, but flags it as a judgement call rather than settling it.
Three problems that look separate are one: the app records money moving, and
separately records who owes whom, and the two never meet.
Documents what is broken with evidence - two half-built settlement models,
settlements existing twice unlinked, and Sonu's $37,980 of loan contributions
sitting unrecognised as generic transfers - then proposes settlement contexts,
payments as transactions rather than a side table, and loan co-ownership.
Nothing built. Five open questions, two of which are decisions about the
arrangement rather than the software.
siddharthd