Few observations without household head

[buscandoaverroes]

My I2D2 checks have caught a few observations without a household head in one year. Since we discussed this earlier, I'd love to hear what others have to say. @gronert-m @alexandraqn @Junying-T @giofsantos11

This is the current state of non-expected household head observations by year

year	observations	No. HH head	No. Distinct HH ID
1997	4	0	1
2004	4	0	1
2007	13	0	3
2017	11	0	2

In this household, and in my data more broadly, I don't feel immediately comfortable declaring a household head by rule. The reason for this, primarily, is because I've had to construct the household IDs myself in most surveys; the raw data did not always provide them. While I'm confident that the Household IDs are quite close to the actual households in most cases, this 'backward' construction introduces another layer of potential ambiguity. I worried about declaring a household head in a household that I constructed post facto.

My thoughts are to either:

1. Leave households without a household head as-is.
2. Chose a household head at random (reproducibly at random).
3. Drop all observations in Households without household head, if these cases fall below a certain threshold (0.01%)

My initial preference is for 1, since this leaves the user with the most freedom. What are your thoughts -- and to what extent should this situation be considered differently than with ZAF?

[buscandoaverroes]

resolved by talking to @gronert-m and allowing the number of household heads to be 0 with documentation. Where to document this?

[buscandoaverroes]

resolved by talking to @gronert-m and allowing the number of household heads to be 0 with documentation. Where to document this?

resolved in #148