Files
school_compare/nextjs-app/components/school/lastDistanceOffered.ts
TudorandClaude Opus 5 ea5249a2ea
PR Checks / Frontend Typecheck + Tests (pull_request) Successful in 1m3s
PR Checks / Backend Smoke (pull_request) Successful in 7s
PR Checks / Build Backend (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 10s
PR Checks / Build Frontend (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 45s
PR Checks / Build Pipeline (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 11s
PR Checks / AI Code Review (Claude) (pull_request) Successful in 58s
fix(admissions): state distance in miles throughout, never mixed
The postcode check read "69 m away — inside the September 2026 cut-off of
0.17 miles". Both numbers are right and the sentence is still useless: the
reader has to convert one of them to check a comparison we had already made
for them.

The cause was a readability rule of mine in formatCutoffDistance, which swapped
to metres below 100m on the grounds that "0.04 miles" carries less than "69 m".
Taken one figure at a time that holds. Taken in a sentence containing two
figures it guarantees a mismatch whenever they fall either side of the
threshold — and a 270m cut-off with a nearby home does exactly that.

Miles now lead everywhere. It is the unit UK school admissions runs on:
councils publish cut-offs in miles (90% of the collected source rows), and it
is what a parent has already been quoted in their booklet and offer letter.
The metric figure survives only as support beside the miles figure on the
Admissions tile, where it converts the same value rather than presenting a
second one to compare.

Below 0.01 miles the decimal places run out rather than the unit being wrong,
so a very short distance is described — "under 0.01 miles" — instead of
rounding to a flat "0.00 miles", which would read as no distance at all.

Both figures in the verdict now go through one formatter with no fallback that
could reach for another unit. The old `?? "N m"` fallbacks on that line were a
second route to the same defect and are gone.

Covered by a sweep over sixty home/cut-off combinations spanning the old
switch point, asserting no verdict contains a metric reading and that exactly
two miles figures appear; plus the reported case pinned verbatim, and an e2e
guard on the rendered verdict.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WDvkyqqHABm4bmth2kjAxE
2026-08-20 20:35:05 +01:00

213 lines
8.7 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* Shared logic and copy for the "last distance offered" figure.
*
* The primary and secondary admissions sections lay their metrics out
* differently (a seamless tile grid vs. metric cards), so the markup is not
* shared — but the words are. Every caveat below is doing a specific job, and
* a figure that appeared on one template without them would be misleading in a
* way the other template was not:
*
* * The year, because a cut-off is the outcome of one particular admissions
* round and means nothing detached from it.
* * "not a fixed catchment", because that is the inference a parent will
* otherwise draw, and it is wrong — the distance moves every year.
* * The route count, because on a banded school the headline is the widest
* of several cut-offs and does not apply to every child.
*/
import type { SchoolAdmissionDistance } from '@/lib/types';
import { formatCutoffDistance, formatMiles, formatEntryYear } from '@/lib/utils';
export interface CutoffDisplay {
/** Headline figure, e.g. "0.31 miles". */
primary: string;
/** Supporting conversion, e.g. "500 m". */
secondary: string;
/** Entry point the figure belongs to, e.g. "September 2025". */
entryYear: string;
/** Present only where several admission routes were collapsed into one figure. */
routeNote: string | null;
}
/** What the cut-off measures, and what it does not. Identical on both templates. */
export const CUTOFF_NOTE =
'The furthest home offered a place, after higher priorities such as siblings, ' +
'faith and EHCP were applied. It is not a fixed catchment — it moves every year ' +
'with the number of applications.';
/** Straight-line, because that is how councils measure it. */
export const CUTOFF_MEASUREMENT_NOTE = 'Measured in a straight line from the school.';
export function describeCutoff(
distance: SchoolAdmissionDistance | null | undefined
): CutoffDisplay | null {
if (!distance) return null;
const figure = formatCutoffDistance(distance.distance_m);
if (!figure) return null;
const routes = distance.route_count ?? 1;
return {
primary: figure.primary,
secondary: figure.secondary,
entryYear: formatEntryYear(distance.year),
routeNote:
routes > 1
? `Furthest of ${routes} admission routes at this school — the one that ` +
'applies to your child may have had a shorter cut-off.'
: null,
};
}
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// "Would we have got in?"
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/**
* How close a home has to be to the cut-off before the comparison stops
* meaning anything, in metres.
*
* postcodes.io returns the centroid of a postcode unit covering roughly fifteen
* addresses, so the home point carries error of this order before anything else
* is considered. Against a cut-off that is often only 500 m that is a fifth of
* the whole distance. Inside this band the honest answer is that we cannot
* tell, and saying "you would have been offered a place" would be inventing
* precision the inputs do not have.
*/
export const CUTOFF_UNCERTAINTY_M = 100;
export type CutoffVerdict = 'inside' | 'outside' | 'too-close';
export interface CutoffCheckResult {
/** Straight-line metres from the given postcode to the school. */
distanceM: number;
distanceLabel: string;
verdict: CutoffVerdict;
headline: string;
/** Why we cannot call it, on the one verdict that needs explaining. Kept
* apart from the headline so it does not run at headline weight. */
detail: string | null;
}
/**
* Compare a home against the one cut-off we publish.
*
* Only the latest year is compared because only the latest year is served:
* earlier years are held back as a paid feature and no longer leave the API.
* A single year makes the verdict sharper to state and easier to qualify — one
* distance, one year, one margin — but it also removes the reassurance a run of
* years gave, so the year is named in the headline rather than left implied.
*/
export function compareToCutoff(
distanceM: number,
cutoffM: number,
year: number,
): CutoffCheckResult {
const margin = cutoffM - distanceM;
const verdict: CutoffVerdict =
Math.abs(margin) <= CUTOFF_UNCERTAINTY_M ? 'too-close' : margin > 0 ? 'inside' : 'outside';
// Both sides through the same formatter, with no fallback that could reach
// for a different unit: the sentence compares these two numbers directly, so
// they have to be in the same one. formatCutoffDistance returns null for a
// zero or negative figure, and its old "N m" fallback here was one of the
// ways a metres reading used to appear next to a miles one.
const label = formatMiles(distanceM);
const cutoffLabel = formatMiles(cutoffM);
// "the September 2026 cut-off of 0.17 miles" rather than "the 0.17 miles
// cut-off for September 2026": the figure carries its own unit word, which
// reads wrong used attributively.
const cutoffPhrase = `the September ${year} cut-off of ${cutoffLabel}`;
const headline =
verdict === 'inside'
? `${label} away — inside ${cutoffPhrase}.`
: verdict === 'outside'
? `${label} away — beyond ${cutoffPhrase}.`
: `${label} away — too close to ${cutoffPhrase} to call.`;
const detail =
verdict === 'too-close'
? 'Your postcode is a centroid covering several addresses, so a margin '
+ `under ${CUTOFF_UNCERTAINTY_M} m is inside the measurement error.`
: null;
return { distanceM, distanceLabel: label, verdict, headline, detail };
}
/**
* The limits of the figure, and of the check made against it.
*
* One caveat, rendered once at the end of the section. It was previously three
* paragraphs — under the map, under the check, and a trailing "not a catchment"
* line — which took ~180px between them, said walking-route twice, and made
* the same point about priorities in two voices.
*
* Phrased to stand up whether or not the postcode check is on the page: it
* opens on the figure rather than on "your result", because a school with no
* coordinates renders the table with no check beneath it.
*
* Every claim is still here:
* * distance is the last criterion applied, not the first;
* * the figures and rings are straight-line, and not a boundary;
* * some authorities measure a walking route, always longer for the same home;
* * a past cut-off constrains next year's not at all.
*/
export const CUTOFF_CHECK_CAVEAT =
'Distance is the last criterion applied. Places go first to children in care, '
+ 'EHCP places, siblings and — at faith schools — on faith criteria, so a home '
+ 'inside the distance can still miss out. Figures are straight-line distances '
+ 'and not a catchment boundary; some authorities measure a walking route '
+ "instead, which is always longer for the same home. Next year's cut-off "
+ "depends on next year's applicants — always check the school's own "
+ 'admissions policy.';
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// When there is no figure
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/** The slice of an admissions year this file needs. */
interface AdmissionsYearLike {
year: number;
oversubscribed?: boolean | null;
}
interface AbsenceInput {
localAuthority?: string | null;
admissionsPolicy?: string | null;
admissionsHistory?: AdmissionsYearLike[];
}
/**
* Why this school has no cut-off distance, in the most useful terms available.
*
* "No data" is the least informative thing we could say, and for two of these
* cases it is also the most pessimistic reading of a fact that is either
* neutral or good news. The order matters: a selective school's absence is
* explained by how it admits, which outranks anything the publication record
* says.
*/
export function describeCutoffAbsence({
localAuthority,
admissionsPolicy,
admissionsHistory = [],
}: AbsenceInput): string {
const policy = (admissionsPolicy ?? '').toLowerCase();
if (policy.includes('selective')) {
return 'Places at this school are ranked by the entrance test rather than by '
+ 'distance, so no cut-off distance applies.';
}
const known = admissionsHistory.filter((a) => a.oversubscribed != null);
if (known.length >= 3 && known.every((a) => a.oversubscribed === false)) {
return `First preferences have not exceeded places in any of the last ${known.length} `
+ 'years, so this school has not needed a distance cut-off.';
}
return (localAuthority
? `${localAuthority} has not published a cut-off distance for this school.`
: 'No cut-off distance has been published for this school.')
+ ' Contact the admissions authority for its oversubscription criteria.';
}