Beancount

1. Overview

Plain-text double-entry accounting that checks ledger invariants locally, without bank scraping or a subscription.

Category: Tasks & Finance.

2. Version and scope assessed

Version assessed: Source commit 9747213802acb733ce53acc6e963f5961f47d6cd.

4. Principle profile

5. Fundamental requirements

6. Evidence and verification

• E1: The published vesting ledger is independently readable text containing dated directives, multiple commodities, explicit share-cost literals such as {131.3700 USD}, metadata links and postings with deliberately omitted amounts. It distinguishes records from evaluation rules; simply summing the visible numbers is not a validated independent balance or cost-basis reconstruction. (source), confidence high
• E2: The official documentation for this entry provides a relevant practicable exit and migration lead, but this desk review did not perform a version-pinned export, restore, migration, offline, or consequential-behavior test sufficient to establish the claim beyond the recorded status. (source), confidence medium
• E3: The official documentation for this entry provides a relevant independent interpretation and recovery lead, but this desk review did not perform a version-pinned export, restore, migration, offline, or consequential-behavior test sufficient to establish the claim beyond the recorded status. (source), confidence medium
• E4: The official documentation for this entry provides a relevant continuing authority and custody over already-created work lead, but this desk review did not perform a version-pinned export, restore, migration, offline, or consequential-behavior test sufficient to establish the claim beyond the recorded status. (source), confidence medium
• E5: The padding pass synthesizes and inserts Transaction entries after Pad directives to satisfy later balance checks. Its source states that it operates per account/per currency rather than automatically across parent-child account relationships. A pad-generated balancing entry is therefore an accounting transformation to inspect, not evidence that every original transaction was present or correct. (source), confidence medium
• sovereignty: A positive Sovereignty finding requires established E1, E2 and E4 in the declared scope. The existing access/exit/custody record for Beancount does not establish all three minimums. The prior positive finding is withdrawn; recorded storage and portability strengths remain facts, not a verified failure. (source), confidence medium
• longevity: E3 is not established for Beancount's existing essential-record scope. The previous Longevity finding is replaced by Not assessed, not a verified failure or a positive placeholder. (source), confidence medium
• locality: The official documentation for this entry provides a relevant locality lead, but this desk review did not perform a version-pinned export, restore, migration, offline, or consequential-behavior test sufficient to establish the claim beyond the recorded status. (source), confidence medium
• transparency: The positive control observations above do not yet establish whole-scope E5. The methodology requires that minimum before a positive Transparency and Control finding; the previous positive finding is therefore withdrawn to Not assessed, not changed to Does not meet. (source), confidence medium
• E3: The ledger exposes dated directives, costs, commodities, metadata and omitted amounts, but independent exact balance/lot/FX interpretation and plugin-expanded meaning are not established. Readable text is not a complete replacement evaluator or a reconstruction of all essential accounting invariants. (source), confidence medium
• E5: Padding synthesizes accounting transactions with account/currency-specific limits. That is an inspectable transformation, not proof of complete original data or automatic accounting correctness. Effective plugin/import authorization, change review and reversal across the declared ledger remain insufficiently evidenced. (source), confidence medium
• E2: The former E2 Pass does not establish an alternative accounting workflow preserving omitted-amount inference, lots, prices, currencies and plugin-derived meaning. Ordinary ledger text readability does not complete that semantic migration. (source), confidence medium

7. Migration and recovery

Native storage format: UTF-8 plain-text Beancount ledgers.

Synchronization or runtime model: Git version control or file sync.

Example export or inspection command (not verified against any particular version or data set): bean-query ledger.beancount 'SELECT account, sum(position)'

8. Architectural strengths

Established strengths and their scope are recorded in the evidence and assessment findings on this page.

9. Architectural limitations

• Readable postings with omitted amounts/costs still require accounting interpretation.
• Automatic padding can add balancing entries; balance success alone does not prove historical completeness.

10. Assessment findings and remaining work

Evidence update: 23 October 2026

• Resolved: The published vesting ledger is independently readable text containing dated directives, multiple commodities, explicit share-cost literals such as {131.3700 USD}, metadata links and postings with deliberately omitted amounts. It distinguishes records from evaluation rules; simply summing the visible numbers is not a validated independent balance or cost-basis reconstruction. Source.
• Resolved: The padding pass synthesizes and inserts Transaction entries after Pad directives to satisfy later balance checks. Its source states that it operates per account/per currency rather than automatically across parent-child account relationships. A pad-generated balancing entry is therefore an accounting transformation to inspect, not evidence that every original transaction was present or correct. Source.
• Open: Independent exact balance/lot/FX reproduction, plugin effects, migration to another ledger, v2/v3 compatibility, report fidelity and actual editing/recovery. E5 needs plugin/import and generated-transaction review, visible source changes and correction/restore boundaries; balancing alone does not establish oversight.

Assessment follow-up: These bounded findings are incorporated into the evidence above. Eligibility and principle ratings are deliberately unchanged; their reconciliation and any blank-status fixes are deferred to the next pass. Reproduction details and retained inputs are in evidence/third-pass/batch-7/.

Human-readable criteria: Can an independent person read the ledger, validate it, reproduce its reports, preserve its currencies and metadata, and continue accounting without Beancount.io or another hosted service?

Verification scenario: Independently parse postings, lots, prices, currencies, and reports, and run ledger balance invariants.

What may invalidate an overconfident claim: Do not conflate with hledger; syntax, extensions, and semantics differ.

Documentation starting point: https://beancount.github.io/docs/

Rating reconciliation: 24 October 2026

E3 and E5 remain Not Verified for the existing declared scope. Longevity and Transparency and Control are Not assessed pending their required minimums. Sovereignty is also Not assessed because the required access/exit/custody minimums are not all established. The prior E2 Pass is withdrawn; its essential-record migration comparison remains incomplete. This is a targeted evidence decision, not a finding that the product fails. Existing E1, E4 and Locality findings were not re-certified.

Remaining: Independent exact balance/lot/FX reproduction, plugin effects, migration to another ledger, v2/v3 compatibility, report fidelity and actual editing/recovery. E5 needs plugin/import and generated-transaction review, visible source changes and correction/restore boundaries; balancing alone does not establish oversight.

Next without installing locally: Use a synthetic ledger with expected balances, lots/FX, plugin configuration and source hashes; compare an independent evaluator or supplied result record, and inspect pad/import/plugin diffs and recovery evidence.

The individual decision and provenance are retained in evidence/rating-reconciliation/batch-7/. Overall: Insufficient evidence.

Individually reconciled in rating batch 7 on 24 October 2026. E3/E5 remain Not Verified for explicit missing coverage; dependent unsupported findings corrected. Previously resolved questions are retained, not counted again. E1/E4/Locality were not re-certified by this targeted review. The assessment procedure is described in the methodology.