docs: record the San Acacia piezometer identifier conflicts - #855
Merged
Conversation
Found while reconciling Diver-HUB points against Ocotillo wells. Present in production, not only staging. Three separate problems. The NMBGMR and unattributed identifier sources assign A and B to opposite wells for the BRN-E04 shallow/deep pair. They disagree about whether SO-0262/SO-0263 belong to NRCS site 3 or site 2, where site 2 already exists as SO-0274 and its piezometers. And the A/B suffix does not consistently indicate depth -- A is the deep well at four sites and the shallow one at two, inconsistently even within the NRCS series. None of it blocks ingestion, which matches on SO-#### where both systems agree. It matters to anyone identifying these wells by field name, and a swap on a paired piezometer nest attributes a shallow series to a deep well. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
Coverage✅ 79.33% total — gate is 75%. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Write-up backing BDMS-1168. Found while reconciling Diver-HUB monitoring
points against Ocotillo wells; present in production, not only staging.
Three distinct problems, none of which block ingestion — the vendor names its
points
SO-####and Ocotillo agrees on those, so matching is exact. They matterto anyone who identifies these wells by field name instead.
wells for the
BRN-E04shallow/deep pair. A swap on a piezometer nestattributes a shallow series to a deep well.
SO-0262/SO-0263are NRCS site 3 or site 2 —and site 2 already exists as
SO-0274with its own piezometers.four sites and the shallow one at two, inconsistently even within the NRCS
series. Any analysis assuming "A is deep" is right four times and wrong twice.
How it was found
Matching on
alternate_idproduced a confident single hit forBRN-E04AonSO-0131 — contradicting NMBGMR — with no ambiguity flag, because the
(shallow)suffix makes the two strings differ. A wrong answer with no sign oftrouble, which is worse than the ambiguity the reconciler was built to escalate.
External-id matching is opt-in as a result, with a test pinning these rows
(merged in #852). That is a guard, not a fix: the records still disagree.
Sibling of BDMS-1169 (394,086 observations with no AMPAPI QC provenance), found
in the same work.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code