Water records, reconciliation, and reporting
Research into water-accounting workflows, including double-entry prototypes. An invitation to understand the work with people responsible for the records.
- Record a movement
- Reconcile the records
- Review and report
The work I want to understand
I’m exploring software for water records, reconciliation, and reporting. I’ve explored double-entry water-accounting prototypes. The next useful step is understanding the actual accounting work with the people responsible for it.
A prototype can help make questions concrete. It does not establish that the model fits a district’s records or operating rules.
Questions for a domain review
- What records show a movement of water, and who checks them?
- Which sources need to agree before a period can be closed?
- How are corrections recorded without losing the earlier history?
- Which exceptions require judgment from a person?
- What does a reviewer need to see to explain a report?
Those questions need real process knowledge. District staff, water managers, and growers may see different parts of the same work.
What exists, and what remains to test
Research / prototype. Double-entry prototype work is a basis for discussion. Operational suitability, domain rules, and reporting requirements still need review with the people doing the work.
This is not an accepted production platform or a claim of regulatory compliance. I’m not presenting a universal water-rights model or a verified customer result.
A useful conversation
If you’re responsible for water records, I’d like to understand how a single reporting period moves from source records to review. A description of that process is enough for an introduction; there’s no need to send private records in the first email.