* fix(arsredovisning): truthful K3 policy note and GRANSKNINGSUTKAST watermark
The K3 redovisningsprinciper note asserted policies the engine does not
follow: full balansrakningsmetoden deferred tax and finance lease
capitalization. The note now states actual practice: deferred tax only on
obeskattade reserver at 20,6 percent, all leases expensed as operational.
Every K3 report is classified AR-K3-DRAFT-ONLY, so the K3 PDF now carries
a fixed rotated GRANSKNINGSUTKAST watermark on every page, and the
arsredovisning studio shows an always visible AttnLine for K3 explaining
that the document cannot be locked or filed via Accounted yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(arsredovisning): stop the two K3 deferred-tax notes contradicting each other
The redovisningsprinciper note said deferred tax on obeskattade reserver is
not separately recognised in juridisk person, while the "Uppskjutna skatter"
note right after it disclosed exactly that split plus the 8940 movement. A
signed arsredovisning cannot say both.
Both notes are now driven by one derivation (deriveLatentTaxMovement in
build-data.ts, computed before note 1 is built): with no 2240/8940 activity
the policy paragraph states the gross treatment K3 29.37 permits and no
movement note is emitted; with a 2240 balance the paragraph discloses the
recognised liability and points at the movement note. Neither text claims a
measurement rate or an origin the builder cannot verify, since a balance can
come from the K3 bokslutsdisposition, a legacy posting or an SIE import
booked at 22 or 21,4 percent.
The leasing paragraph now states the basis for its blanket treatment: the
document is always a single juridisk person with no koncernredovisning, so
the K3 punkt 20.29 exemption applies. Without that qualifier the paragraph
asserted a treatment that is not the general K3 rule.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(arsredovisning): never assert a K3 policy the books can contradict
Three cases where the principles note still made claims it could not back: a read failure on the 2240/8940 figures printed the affirmative denial anyway, the leasing paragraph asserted a fact about the entity's group obligations that a Koncernforhallanden note in the same document can contradict, and the blanket operational-lease claim survived even when the balance sheet carries leased assets on 1260/1269. Deferred tax becomes a tri-state (none/recognized/unknown) and leasing is driven by the same trial balance.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Jakob Wennberg <311770904+jakobwennberg-oss@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Jakob Wennberg
ab712f829a