siddharthd
2d341e24a0
ci / lint-test (push) Successful in 49s
You were right and my label was wrong. A payment is allocated to a trip as a lump sum, and the grouped-payment allocation gave each trip enough to clear the payer's gross share. So netting the other side off leaves a fully-paid trip negative by exactly what the payment over-covered: Europe reads -$802.75 because Sonu paid $8,004.04 against a net share of $7,201.30. That surplus is already carried in the overall balance, where she still owes $5,313.38 — nothing is owed to her, and "you owe them" said the opposite. The arithmetic never changed; only what the page claims it means. paid_to_me is the discriminator: negative with a payment into the scope is over-coverage, negative with no payment is genuinely owed because the viewer's share of the other person's spending exceeds theirs. Both cases now tested. All three of today's negatives are the first kind. The trip table gains an Overall balance column from the unscoped participant balances, because a single trip's figure cannot tell you whether to pay anyone, and the footnote now says settlement is always against the overall figure. 278 passing, build clean.