Bugs

Subject: Retirees who draw from their portfolios can have accurate cash flow or accurate retirement math, not both Summary When a retired client funds living expenses from their portfolio, the natural way to show that in cash flow is an income record (type "Investment Income") representing the planned draws. The retirement goal reads every household income record, regardless of type or taxability, and treats it as income that offsets spending. If the draw comes from the same accounts assigned to the retirement goal, the plan counts the same dollars twice: once as income and once as the balance that has to fund spending. Example (retired household, $2.93M in assigned retirement accounts) Fixed income (Social Security, pension, annuity) is about $136k/yr. Planned after-tax spending is about $256k/yr. The gap is covered by two portfolio-draw records totaling about $191k/yr, which were entered so cash flow reconciles. With those records in place, the retirement goal shows 369% of goal needs (balance of $2.93M against a $795k capital need) and 142% funded. The goal's derived spending drops the draws out of what the portfolio has to fund, so the capital need is understated. With the draws removed and spending set manually, the same plan shows about 137% balance-to-target and about 118% spending coverage. The projected end-of-plan balance falls from $5.0M to about $2.0M. The household appears to have more than twice the real cushion. The bind * Keep the draws as income: cash flow is accurate, but the retirement and goal calculators overstate funding substantially. * Delete the draws: the retirement math is correct, but cash flow shows a roughly $120k/yr deficit with no visible funding source. * Retype the draws (Not Taxable, Tax Exempt, Ordinary Income): this doesn't help. We tested it, and the retirement projection counts the record regardless of its type. Taxability only changes tax treatment. * Set an end date: this doesn't work either when the client is already retired. Planners can work around this only by manually overriding the goal's spending need, and only after deleting the records. That is fragile, and most advisors won't notice the distortion in the first place. Suggested fix Give income records a way to say "this is a withdrawal from the portfolio, not new money." Records flagged this way would: * stay in cash flow and in tax calculations as they do now, shown as portfolio-funded; * be excluded from the retirement and goal calculators, which already solve for the withdrawals themselves. The flag could be set by the advisor, defaulted on for Investment Income records tied to accounts assigned to a goal, or driven by a link from the income record to its source accounts. Risks of excluding investment income from the calculators by default Real investment income gets dropped. Rental income, interest or dividends from accounts not assigned to any goal, trust distributions, and royalties are genuine outside income. Excluding all of it by default would understate funding for those clients. The exclusion should depend on the income being sourced from assigned accounts, not on its type. Unfunded inflows can be double-counted the other way. If yield on assigned accounts is also modeled as portfolio return (as the 8%/5% return assumptions imply), income taken from those accounts is already in the return. Excluding it is correct. Excluding income from unassigned accounts is not. Existing plans change silently. Every plan that has draw records entered as income would show new funded percentages the next time it's opened, including numbers already shared with clients. This could be distressing to a client during a period of volatility. Tax drift. If the excluded records stop feeding the projection's tax calculation, they should be replaced by the engine's own tax on the withdrawals. We need to confirm that the engine's tax on withdrawals already covers the "estimated tax" draws that advisors enter separately. Cash flow and retirement views diverge. A household would show a deficit in one place and a surplus in another unless the portfolio-funded gap is displayed clearly. That's a UI requirement of the fix. I'm currently handling this by not showing retirees the goal calculators or the retirement calculator, which is a bit ironic.

i asked dora to document all my primary and successor roles and it either isn't showing anything or showing something like "entity_1LSIf6sT31ZLysHcnPq3eA". Dora seems to be able to extract it correctly, but it's not showing on the actual page. here's her response: The data is all correctly stored — entity IDs resolve, agents are wired in. This is a display limitation, not a data error. Root cause: The estate plan summary renders named roles (personal rep, trustee, financial agent, health care agent, guardian) by resolving structured payload fields (executor, agent, guardianForMinors, etc.) to household entity names. The primary agents are correctly set — [spouse] point to each other as executor, financial agent, and health care agent. What shows as "not named" are the successor slots, which appear in all 9 instruments. Those three people are not household entities, so their names can't be stored in the structured executorSuccessor / agentSuccessor / guardianForMinors fields — those fields only accept entity IDs. They're captured in the documentSummary text on each instrument but that's free text, not a named-role slot the summary panel reads. Two options going forward: Accept the limitation — successors stay in the document summary text. The primary agents (spouse) display correctly; successors are visible by opening the individual instrument. This is appropriate for third parties who aren't plan members. Add them as key contacts — use the estate contacts surface to record [name] (or another) as the named attorney/contact. That would populate the contacts section of the estate summary, though not the individual role slots. There's no mechanism in the current data model to add a non-household person as a named successor agent in a structured field. Would you like me to add the key successors to the estate contacts panel?

Formatting feedback, full screen accounts page squishes the "account name" field to a point where it is unusable. However, when you adjust the size of your screen to be smaller, as soon as the "contributions" column disappears, the account name is perfectly sized and you can actually read/edit it