Report legend: reinstate the explanatory sentences for partial and deposit-reduced amounts

[steilerDev]

[product-owner]

As a homeowner submitting a report to my bank or subsidy programme, I want the partial and deposit-reduced amount labels explained once in the document, so that the recipient can tell why a shown amount is lower than the invoice amount without asking me a follow-up question.

Parent Epic: none — part of the parent-less Bank Report Wizard cluster (#1876-#1879, #1898-#1901, #1923).
Priority: Must Have

Problem

PR #1959 replaced the shared †/‡ footnote markers and their explanatory sentences with inline grey labels appended to the allocated amount: (partial) / (less deposit) (de: (Teilbetrag) / (abzgl. Abschlag)). The inline labels are an improvement as an in-row signal and are kept. But the sentences were removed entirely, not relocated:

• sourceReports.table.splitFootnote — "Amount shown reflects only the portion allocated to this source."
• sourceReports.table.depositReducedFootnote — "This position reflects deposits claimed separately."

Both keys still exist in en and de and are now unread by production code (the only remaining references are fixture strings in overviewPdf.test.ts).

Why the deposit sentence is load-bearing

(less deposit) states that a deposit was deducted. The footnote stated the deposit was claimed separately — i.e. it is accounted for in another submission. For a recipient auditing a Verwendungsnachweis / Mittelabruf those are materially different claims: "less deposit" is equally consistent with the deposit never being claimed at all, and it leaves a double-claim question open when the same deposit surfaces in a later submission. The missing word is separately, and it has audit consequences.

(partial) is the weaker case for a sentence: the table prints Invoice Amount and Allocated Amount side by side, so the label only has to name the reason for a difference the reader can already see. It is included below for symmetry, not because it is independently required.

This is a producer-only change — the rendering machinery is already live

• ReportContentFootnote[] is still on the content model. buildReportContent.ts declares const footnotes: ReportContentFootnote[] = [] (L232) and returns it (L289) but never pushes to it.
• ReportContentEditor.tsx L445-450 already renders content.footnotes.
• overviewPdf.ts already appends reportContent.footnotes verbatim after the skip block (pinned by the overviewPdf.test.ts case "appends reportContent.footnotes verbatim after the skip block, without re-deriving text").

Both renderers therefore pick up legend entries automatically, and preview/PDF parity comes for free.

Acceptance Criteria

1. Legend content

• 1.1 Given a report where at least one included row has isSplit === true, When buildReportContent runs, Then the returned footnotes array contains exactly one entry whose text is t('sourceReports.table.splitFootnote') — with no Vendor (Invoice No.) — prefix and no numeric suffix on its marker.
• 1.2 Given a report where at least one included row has isDepositReduced === true, When buildReportContent runs, Then footnotes contains exactly one entry whose text is t('sourceReports.table.depositReducedFootnote'), under the same no-prefix / no-numbering constraint.
• 1.3 Given a report where both flags occur across rows, Then footnotes has exactly two entries, ordered split first, deposit-reduced second.
• 1.4 Given a report where neither flag occurs on any included row, Then footnotes is empty and neither sentence appears in the preview DOM or in the rendered PDF's extracted text.
• 1.5 Given N > 1 rows carrying the same flag, Then the corresponding sentence appears exactly once in the rendered output — asserted by counting occurrences in the rendered preview DOM and in the rendered PDF text, not only by inspecting the array length.

2. Relationship to the inline labels

• 2.1 The inline labels shipped in fix(reports): improve report PDF UX — paragraph breaks, inline meta, inline notes, column toggles #1959 — splitInlineLabel, depositReducedInlineLabel, and the constituted-deposit attachmentType.deposit label — are unchanged in text, placement, and styling. This issue is purely additive.
• 2.2 No †, ‡, or numbered variant of either is reintroduced into any table cell. Asserted by absence in the rendered PDF's extracted text and in the preview DOM.
• 2.3 Each legend entry and the row label it explains share a literal string that appears in both (e.g. the row shows (partial) and the legend entry begins partial:), so the reader can join legend to row without a glyph. Asserted by extracting the shared token from the row cell and finding the same token in the legend entry. The exact join mechanism is the implementer's call; the shared-token property is the criterion.

3. Both surfaces, both locales

• 3.1 The legend renders identically in the editable HTML preview and in the exported PDF (same sentences, same order), asserted against a real render per the realRender.test.ts pattern — real i18n bundles, real formatters, no key-echoing t mock.
• 3.2 Both sentences resolve in en and de. splitFootnote and depositReducedFootnote are retained in both locale files, not deleted. German wording is unchanged from what is already in de/budget.json (already glossary-clean: Abschlagszahlungen in full).
• 3.3 The generation-time skipped-document footnotes (*1, *2, …) are unchanged in numbering, text, and position relative to the legend block.

4. Layout

• 4.1 With the maximum legend present (both sentences), a real render at the report's configured page size paints no text outside the printable area and clips no glyph — measured against the real embedded font, per the approach established in Report PDF layout breaks: usage column overflows the page, rows split across page breaks, running header clipped #1929, not eyeballed.

Notes

• This supersedes the orphan-key cleanup that was otherwise queued for these two keys. They are consumed here, so they must not be deleted. If this issue is ever closed Wont-Do, the alternative resolution is to delete both keys from en and de together (translator owns de/) — but not before.
• Report table cleanup: shared footnotes, inline deposit labels, claim metadata, total-only summary, area in Usage #1923 AC1.1, AC1.2, AC2.3 and AC2.4 (the numbered-to-shared footnote design) are superseded by fix(reports): improve report PDF UX — paragraph breaks, inline meta, inline notes, column toggles #1959 and by this issue. See the supersession note posted on Report table cleanup: shared footnotes, inline deposit labels, claim metadata, total-only summary, area in Usage #1923.
• Do not reintroduce per-invoice numbering. Report table cleanup: shared footnotes, inline deposit labels, claim metadata, total-only summary, area in Usage #1923 removed it deliberately — the identical sentence was printing once per split invoice — and that decision stands.
• Do not put the sentences in the cover letter. The cover letter is user-editable (Cover letter overhaul: formatted body, editable signature block, personal sender, professional layout #1932); an editable qualification can be deleted, silently removing a material statement from a financial document. The legend must be a report-level, non-editable element like the existing footnote block.
• Related: Source report: add splitKind to distinguish deposit-driven splits from line splits #1911 (splitKind to distinguish deposit-driven splits from line splits) — if that lands first, the legend wording may need a third variant; not a dependency.

[steilerDev]

[product-owner]

#1973 raises this issue's necessity — recording it here so the link isn't lost (2026-08-03).

The user has ruled that report table columns are freely hideable, with Allocated Amount the only mandatory column ("generalize the use case i want to be able to specify an arbitrary amount of columns - only the allocated amount is a mandatory column"). That is now tracked as #1973.

This changes the standing of the legend. When I accepted the inline (partial) label on PR #1959 without its explanatory sentence, the justification was adjacency: Invoice Amount sits beside Allocated Amount, so a reader can see the difference the label names. Under #1973, Invoice Amount is hideable — so that justification is no longer guaranteed to hold in a shipped document.

Two consequences:

1. This legend is now necessary, not merely better. (less deposit) was already ruled insufficient on its own regardless of adjacency (its missing word is separately), so the legend block always had to print. (partial) now joins it on the same footing rather than riding on a layout coincidence.
2. Report column visibility: wire the preview toggles through to the generated PDF #1973 is blocked by this issue, and the block is recorded as a GitHub blocked-by relationship. Shipping column hiding first would let a bank-facing PDF carry an unexplained (partial).

I was asked whether the legend should instead become conditional on the visible set — printed only when Invoice Amount is hidden. Ruled no, and #1973 AC 6.1 explicitly forbids implementing it that way: (less deposit) forces the legend block to exist unconditionally anyway, so conditioning the other sentence saves nothing and only adds a branch whose output a reader cannot predict from the document. Identical report content must not produce different explanatory prose because of a presentation checkbox.

No change to this issue's scope or acceptance criteria — the legend stays unconditional exactly as specified. This comment records why it must stay that way.