I might get the scent of where you are heading, but I am not able to see it in the example you point out in d-portal. This is just a big grant, allowing disbursements to a very large number of partners. But that points towards an entirely different issue – an issue where I’m quite sure that there will never be consensus about how to use the schema nor the optional hierarchy.
(In our activity-file, the lowest level is the level of ‘commitment’ – not the transaction of course, but the ‘binding agreement with the partner’ meaning that each and every one of the many recipient organisations in the example would constitute a child-activity of it’s own, in DK’s activity file.)
There are also an issue about the ‘role’ of organisations; as a random example in the example I could refer to ‘SOS Sahel’, listed as implementing organisation no. 98. It appears however that this organisation calls itself ‘SOS Sahel International UK’, and claims to hold an extending role, with SOS Sahel Ethiopia as the implementing partner.
So – looking into it in order to understand the motivation for enriched transaction-data, I arrive at entirely different issues. Issues that are probably less about the standard itself, but rather how we use it – how we recommend our partners to use it. In this case: Ensure mutual recognition of the ‘role’ undertaken by your organisation in the specific activity, and make sure that your identification of ‘iati-activities’ corresponds with a very tangible concept of ‘partnership’, already found in the very foundation of your operational procedures.
I know it’s a far shot, but could that last observation be considered an alternative solution to the problem you address? If one activity has multiple sources, and one of these insists to ‘earmark’ their support for specific parts of the activity, then it just might be that you actually already are managing the complex as several separate activities, and ought to revise your definition of IATI-activities rather than the coding of IATI-transactions.?