feat: refine web analytics and history views

.project-docs/50-evidence/topics/2026-07-31-multi-price-warning-diagnostic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Evidence Topic: 21–31 same-room-category multi-price warning
+
+- Date: 2026-07-31
+- Status: Active data-review finding; no code or database mutation
+- Scope: Successful job `8aa1fdef3b644f3a9cc0f26924445a29`, July `21-month-end`
+- Confidence: Fact
+- Stale trigger: Finance-version change, report rerun, or pricing rule change
+
+## Rule
+
+For each output segment `(normalized Group Code, ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE)`, the processor groups Finance facts by
+`(room_category_label, total_price)`. If one Finance room-category label has more than one distinct `total_price` in
+that segment, it emits `COMPANY_REPORT_MULTI_PRICE_REVIEW` with stage `pricing` and keeps the report successful. It does
+not use Booking Room or Markdown room types for this check, and it does not choose min/max/average on behalf of the user.
+
+## Observed job
+
+- Five companies succeeded; warnings were LianTai 4, QBD 8, DY-AI-Easy-KB 0, FengRun 1 and HanaTour 0.
+- There were 13 warning groups covering 116 Finance record IDs.
+- Representative LianTai case: Group Code `LT260718KB`, stay `2026-07-20 → 2026-07-22`; `RM3` appears at 3,600 for
+  nine records and 6,800 for one record. The output therefore keeps both terms, e.g. `【RM3】3,600×9 + 【RM3】6,800×1`.
+- The Booking lookup for that same Group Code remains independent (`【DBL】12` in the current Markdown source).
+
+## Interpretation
+
+The warning means Finance/Opera contains a price inconsistency or a legitimate pricing split for the same Finance room
+category within one output segment. It is a human-review signal, not a Booking matching failure and not a report error.
+To resolve it, inspect the underlying Finance/Opera pricing rows and decide whether the differing prices are expected. If
+the source is wrong, correct the Finance input and rerun; if expected, retain the warning as an audit note.