Investigate consistency of findings between general and findings forms

[phildominguez-gsa]

Spinning this off of this ticket

The relevant text from that ticket:

The `general` table has indicators of whether there are only unmodified opinions. The `findings` table can, however, report modified opinions on compliance. This is inconsistent.

1. These should not be "at odds" with each-other. An audit with inconsistent reporting should be blocked from submission.
2. If a modified opinion is reported in the `general` table, then there must be corresponding entries in the `findings` table; it cannot be that there are no corresponding findings.

Before implementing this validation, we first need to confirm that this restriction is in fact "real" and isn't going to cause problems for auditors in the future. It seems this validation idea came from HHS/Federal audit reviewers, so we want to run it by those who actually submit audits.

[phildominguez-gsa]

@Leighdiddy @James-Paul-Mason @analynd Would this be something you guys could assist with?

[analynd]

Hi @phildominguez-gsa, sorry I missed this in my inbox! This actually sounds relevant to something that was brought up during our call with HHS today.

I'm still unfamiliar and learning about findings so gonna pass this to @danswick and @Leighdiddy for guidance. Thanks!

[phildominguez-gsa]

Still looking for assistance here @Leighdiddy @analynd @danswick

[Leighdiddy]

@phildominguez-gsa I can confirm that this is correct, we just reviewed this with HUD last week :) Regardless of pushback from auditors, this should be a set if/than rule. We will keep an eye out for edge cases after implementation, but this can move forward.