Consignment

Stock held at a partner site · owned by Minimalist until the partner reports a sale · positions reconciled against monthly statements, aged, settled and disputed · a partner site is a location because the partner is accountable for loss there

CONS_FLOWARD

Floward · 12% commission

186

AED 92.1Kreconciled

stmt 01-08Δ 0

CONS_NAMSHI

Namshi · 18% commission

142

AED 71.4Kdispute

stmt 01-08Δ -4

CONS_ETHER

Ether · 15% commission

AED 48.6Kreconciled

stmt 02-08Δ 0

CONS_THINGS

Things · 20% commission

AED 47.3Ktiming Δ

stmt 01-08Δ -2

CONS_BOKSHA

Boksha · 22% commission

AED 24.6Kno statement

due 05-089d late

Partner positions

Position is the ledger balance at the CONS_* location · there is no second table holding a parallel quantity

573 units · AED 284K1 dispute

Partner	Location	Units	Value AED	Oldest	Aged 90d+	Last statement	Statement state	Δ units	Disputes	Settlement	Count policy
Floward	CONS_FLOWARD	186	92,140	112d	31	01-08 · Jul	matched	0	0	settled 08-08	statement + spot Q3
Namshi	CONS_NAMSHI	142	71,420	96d	22	01-08 · Jul	disputed	-4	1	held	statement + spot Q3
Ether	CONS_ETHER	98	48,610	74d	0	02-08 · Jul	matched	0	0	settled 09-08	statement + spot Q3
Things	CONS_THINGS	84	47,290	88d	12	01-08 · Jul	matching	-2	0	draft	statement + spot Q3
Boksha	CONS_BOKSHA	63	24,610	141d	21	01-07 · Jun	overdue 9d	-	0	blocked	statement + spot Q3

Every one of these positions is STOCK at a CONS_* location with custody_owner = 'partner'. INV1 had a consignment_stock table for the same fact with zero writers and zero readers; i3 has one representation and everything else is a projection.

Statement match · July 2026

A statement is the partner's claim, not truth. It becomes a posting only through a classified variance line, and every classification names a human.

9 agree2 timing1 unreported1 shrinkage1 our error

Partner	Line ref	SKU	Decl. sold	Decl. ret	Decl. close	Ledger close	Δ	Class	Resolution	By
Floward	FLW-JUL-0114	MSR31-07	14	2	42	42	0	agrees	-	auto
Floward	FLW-JUL-0115	LBA01	8	0	31	31	0	agrees	-	auto
Floward	FLW-JUL-0116	JRY01	12	1	28	28	0	agrees	-	auto
Floward	FLW-JUL-0117	FYN01	8	5	85	85	0	agrees	-	auto
Namshi	NMS-2026-07-0022	CDW01	6	1	44	44	0	agrees	-	auto
Namshi	NMS-2026-07-0023	MST-CRM-42-BLK	9	0	34	38	-4	shrinkage	DSP-2026-0007 negotiating	a.yousuf
Namshi	NMS-2026-07-0024	TNS01	7	2	33	33	0	agrees	-	auto
Namshi	NMS-2026-07-0025	PP02	9	1	31	31	0	agrees	-	auto
Ether	ETH-07-A118	FYB01	11	1	52	52	0	agrees	-	auto
Ether	ETH-07-A119	JAE17	7	1	46	46	0	agrees	-	auto
Things	THG/07/0041	MIN-CNL-019	5	3	28	30	-2	timing	3 returns in transit, posted 02-08	a.yousuf
Things	THG/07/0042	MIN-VAS-022	4	0	26	26	0	agrees	-	auto
Things	THG/07/0043	MIN-MRR-003	0	0	30	30	0	unreported_sale	2 POS receipts seen, not on statement	a.yousuf
Floward	FLW-JUL-0118	LLW-BAG-047	3	0	14	11	+3	our_error	3 units dispatched 28-06, posted 02-07	a.yousuf

14 lines, 14 classified, zero left unclassified. At settlement, variance_class = 'unclassified' must be zero: an unexplained difference is never allowed to become a rounding line on an invoice.

Unsold stock aging

Days since the dispatch that put the unit there, not since the last statement

86 over 90d

FlowardNamshiEtherThingsBoksha

0-30d31-60d61-90d90d+ recall candidateRecall threshold is per agreement: aging_recall_days

Reported sales versus expected

Expected is derived from the position and the partner's own trailing sell-through

Boksha flat 2 months

DecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul

FlowardNamshiEtherThingsBokshaExpected

Settlements

July period · AED 156.2K gross

Settlement	Partner	Gross AED	Commission	Shrinkage	Net due	Direction	NetSuite	State
CST-FLW-2026-07	Floward	62,400	7,488	0	54,912	receivable	NS-INV-88214	paid
CST-ETH-2026-07	Ether	31,800	4,770	0	27,030	receivable	NS-INV-88219	paid
CST-THG-2026-07	Things	18,900	3,780	0	15,120	receivable	NS-INV-88231	issued
CST-NMS-2026-07	Namshi	43,100	7,758	3,120	38,462	receivable	-	disputed
CST-BKS-2026-07	Boksha	-	-	-	-	-	-	blocked · no statement
CST-FLW-2026-06	Floward	58,200	6,984	0	51,216	receivable	NS-INV-87104	paid
CST-NMS-2026-06	Namshi	39,600	7,128	640	31,832	receivable	NS-INV-87118	paid
CST-BKS-2026-06	Boksha	11,400	2,508	0	8,892	receivable	NS-INV-87126	paid

Ruling L16: NetSuite is the accounting system of record. Every settlement carries a netsuite_ref and every figure here is a management number that must reconcile to it, not replace it.

DSP-2026-0007 · Namshi shrinkage

4 units · MST-CRM-42-BLK · AED 3,120

negotiating

01-08Statement received. Declared closing 34, ledger closing 38. 01-08Matcher classed the line shrinkage. 0.94% of the position, above the 0.50% tolerance. 02-08Dispute opened by a.yousuf. Liability sits with the partner under the agreement. 04-08Evidence requested: partner floor count for the SKU, plus POS extract for the period. 07-08Partner supplied a count showing 34. No POS extract yet. 11-08Negotiating. Partner proposes 2 units credited, 2 written off jointly. -Unresolved. Settlement CST-NMS-2026-07 is held until this closes.

Write off ours

Writing off the disputed units goes through program_writeoffs like any other write-off: a finance approver who is not the proposer, a quantity row and a cost_ledger row. ck_cd_writeoff refuses a resolution of written_off_minimalist without one.

Ownership, and what it excludes

Consigned stock is owned by Minimalist until the partner reports a sale. It sits in owned_qty, it is in the valuation, and revenue is recognised at the sale report, never at dispatch.

It must also never appear in a channel-sellable total. Per location the projection is correct, but a cross-location roll-up that filters only on the stock-type flag would count all 573 units as sellable to our own customers, and Phase 9 write-back would publish them to Shopify.

i3 asserts this nightly: the naive total minus the location-filtered total must equal the partner position exactly. Today that is 573, and it is checked, not assumed.

Three live defects this page replaces

The credit leg landed nowhere. INV1 spells the partner codes three ways: models.py seeds FLOWARD, while import_outflows.py and migration_v2.py look up CONS_FLOWARD. The importer's guard only skips a row when both ends fail to resolve, so a consignment-out deducted HQ_319 and credited nobody.

The sale leg was skipped on purpose. SKIP_TYPES = {'discontinued', 'consignee sales'}. The row where a partner reports a sale, the only event that legitimately removes a unit from the position, was filtered out before any ledger entry was built.

Idempotency keyed on a spreadsheet row. f"consignment:{r}:{sku}:from", where r is the openpyxl row index of a 5,000-row tab. Re-sort the sheet and every key below the change shifts by one. i3 keys on cons:<partner>:<period>:<line_ref>, which survives a re-sort.

Why a partner site is a location and an influencer is not

Module 04's test has three parts, and all three must hold for a concept to earn a location:

(a) A party outside i3 is accountable for loss. Namshi is, which is what the dispute above is about. For an influencer loan, we eat the loss.
(b) A physical count at a site we operate cannot find it. True for both.
(c) No single one of our locations can be held accountable for chasing it. True for a partner. False for an influencer: HQ_319 chases.

So consignment is STOCK at CONS_NAMSHI, and an influencer holding is INFLUENCER_POOL at HQ_319 with the person recorded as a custodian. i2 modelled both as virtual locations and as stock types, giving four encodings of one fact and no way to answer how many units were out.

Connected to Locations Location detail Influencer Samples Live inventory Stock count Drift Write-off approvals Reports Cash + valuation Transfers Shopify events Audit log SKU detail