Query: reconciling transfers - expectation is for them to net to nil

[cybercuck41]

I know there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of round ups, transfers/transactions from closed savers etc (55. One question I haven't seen answered is why total transfers don't net to nil.

Transfers:
My expectation would have been that each transfer has a dual entry with a corresponding positive and negative entry. So I would have thought the transfers would eliminate to nil.

Inter-account transactions:
On the other hand, if you ignore the transaction type, and simply look at account number vs transfer account number, you can see that the ins and outs eliminate perfectly.

It looks to me like a data integrity problem - whereby only current savers have a corresponding transfer account field entry (and vice versa) which ensures that the sum of total transactions between current savers and the spending account eliminate. However, it misrepresents the spending pattern/habits of all the previous data because it's retroactively been reclassified/declassified - unless all transactions from terminated savers accounts are removed from the dataset - but I can see a few instances in my dataset of references to closed savers so I'm not too sure if that's the case.

Potential culprits:

1. From first glance it looks like Savers IDs are reused (though I'm not 100% sure). This is as I've (to test things out) closed all my savers and opened a single new one with a single transaction in it (transfer from spending to saver). But, upon calling the transactions dataset, I can see historical transfers between spending and this saver that never happened (i.e. throughout the years). This is despite that saver being new (also i've not reused a previous savers name.
2. Interest - it looks like interest transactions only occur against savers accounts. However, when you close the saver the interest entries are removed from the dataset. I know this would be captured by the transfer from saver to spending that occurs when you close the saver, but the retroactive deleting of records (i.e. transfers, interest etc) muddies things.

I think it would be helpful if there was clear documentation as to what exactly happens to the dataset when a saver is closed, so we can use the data with confidence and know how to use it in a way that makes sense.

Fingers crossed someone smarter than me has already figured this out!

[afreuden]

Another Up/API user here... I am suspecting its culprit number 1. I am currently using the PowerBI connector to pull transactions and observed that historical transactions relating to a closed home loan deposit is now retroactively associated with a recently created saver. Interestingly, the creation date time of the saver matches that of the original home loan deposit which should be impossible as the deposit saver can't be converted into a "regular" saver. After settlement, the system automatically closed off the home deposit saver. Only noticed this when my budget for my new saver was blown out by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I can observe this in the CSV, OFX and OpenBanking feeds (e.g., Frollo) so I think this issue is beyond the API.