fix option valuation in analysis

src/analytics/analysis.zig

@@ -1082,7 +1082,20 @@ pub fn analyzePortfolio(
             },
             .cash => lot.shares,
             .cd => lot.shares, // face value
-            .option => @abs(lot.shares) * lot.open_price,
+            // Premium at open. `multiplier` (100 for standard US equity
+            // options) is NOT optional - omitting it counted 1/100th of
+            // the premium and left every option-holding account's row
+            // short by 99% of it, so `zfin analysis`'s By Account
+            // section disagreed with its own Options sector row and
+            // with the `kind::account` totals in every snapshot.
+            //
+            // Must stay identical to `Portfolio.nonStockValueForAccount`
+            // and the `.option` arm of `commands/snapshot.zig:buildSnapshot`.
+            // All three use `@abs`, so a WRITTEN (short) option counts as
+            // a positive asset rather than a liability. That is a
+            // deliberate shared convention, not an oversight - do not
+            // "fix" it at one site alone.
+            .option => @abs(lot.shares) * lot.open_price * lot.multiplier,
             .illiquid, .watch => continue,
         };
         const prev = acct_map.get(acct) orelse 0;
@@ -2200,6 +2213,61 @@ fn testTaxRollup(
     );
 }
 
+test "analyzePortfolio: an option's account value includes the contract multiplier" {
+    // The regression. This arm used to be `@abs(shares) * open_price`
+    // with no `multiplier`, so it counted $2.05 where every other site
+    // counted $205.00 - leaving each option-holding account short by 99%
+    // of its premium, and making `zfin analysis`'s By Account section
+    // disagree with its own Options sector row and with the
+    // `kind::account` rows written into every snapshot.
+    const Lot = @import("../models/portfolio.zig").Lot;
+    var lots = [_]Lot{
+        .{
+            .symbol = "SPY",
+            .shares = 1000,
+            .open_date = Date.fromYmd(2020, 1, 1),
+            .open_price = 100,
+            .account = "Sample Brokerage",
+        },
+        // A written call: -2 contracts at $2.05 premium, multiplier 100.
+        // Premium = |-2| * 2.05 * 100 = $410.00, NOT $4.10.
+        // Opened before `testTaxRollup`'s as_of (2026-08-01) and maturing
+        // after it, so `lotIsOpenAsOf` includes it.
+        .{
+            .security_type = .option,
+            .symbol = "SPY 09/18/2026 700.00 C",
+            .shares = -2,
+            .open_date = Date.fromYmd(2026, 7, 21),
+            .maturity_date = Date.fromYmd(2026, 9, 18),
+            .open_price = 2.05,
+            .option_type = .call,
+            .underlying = "SPY",
+            .strike = 700,
+            .account = "Sample Brokerage",
+        },
+    };
+
+    var am = try testParseAccountMap(
+        \\#!srfv1
+        \\account::Sample Brokerage,tax_type::taxable
+    );
+    defer am.deinit();
+
+    var result = try testTaxRollup(am, &lots, 100_000);
+    defer result.deinit(std.testing.allocator);
+
+    const acct = testBreakdownValue(result.account, "Sample Brokerage").?;
+    // $100,000 of stock + $410.00 of premium. Under the bug: $100,004.10.
+    try std.testing.expectApproxEqAbs(@as(f64, 100_410.0), acct, 0.005);
+
+    // And it must agree with the other two copies of this formula. This is
+    // the invariant that actually matters - the three sites drifted once.
+    const portfolio = Portfolio{ .lots = &lots, .allocator = std.testing.allocator };
+    const non_stock = portfolio.nonStockValueForAccount(Date.fromYmd(2026, 8, 26), "Sample Brokerage");
+    try std.testing.expectApproxEqAbs(@as(f64, 410.0), non_stock, 0.005);
+    try std.testing.expectApproxEqAbs(acct, 100_000.0 + non_stock, 0.005);
+}
+
 test "analyzePortfolio: a mixed account splits its value across tax-type rows" {
     // The headline case. One 401(k) reporting a single $400k balance that
     // is really 75% pre-tax and 25% Roth, plus a $100k taxable brokerage.

src/commands/snapshot.zig

@@ -870,6 +870,9 @@ fn buildSnapshot(
                 });
             },
             .option => {
+                // One of three copies of this premium formula - see
+                // `Portfolio.nonStockValueForAccount` for the invariant
+                // and why `@abs` is deliberate.
                 const opt_value = @abs(lot.shares) * lot.open_price * lot.multiplier;
                 try lots_list.append(allocator, .{
                     .kind = "lot",

src/models/portfolio.zig

@@ -799,6 +799,16 @@ pub const Portfolio = struct {
 
     /// Total value of non-stock holdings (cash, CDs, options) for a single account.
     /// Only includes open lots (respects close_date and maturity_date).
+    ///
+    /// The option arm below is one of THREE copies of the same premium
+    /// formula - the others are `analytics/analysis.zig`'s account
+    /// breakdown and the `.option` arm of
+    /// `commands/snapshot.zig:buildSnapshot`. They must agree; `analysis`
+    /// once dropped `multiplier` and silently under-reported every
+    /// option-holding account by 99% of its premium. All three use
+    /// `@abs`, so a written (short) option counts as a positive asset
+    /// rather than a liability - a deliberate shared convention. Change
+    /// either detail at all three sites or none.
     pub fn nonStockValueForAccount(self: Portfolio, as_of: Date, account_name: []const u8) f64 {
         var total: f64 = 0;
         for (self.lots) |lot| {