Why does the Transaction Entity depend on the Boundary's TransactionCarrier?

Wouldn't it be cleaner if this relationship was inversed? This is leaking Boundary internals into the Entity. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding some parts of BCE and this isn't really an issue? Is there a reason for what's essentially a DTO mapping to be part of the Entity?

From Transaction.java

// Transaction lives in the entity package
public sealed interface Transaction {
    // TransactionCarrier lives in the boundary package
    static Transaction from(TransactionCarrier transaction) {
       // ...
        };
    }
}

Start by reading the Transaction.java excerpt and tracing the referenced TransactionCarrier in the boundary package to understand the current dependency and mapping. Compare that relationship with the repository's BCE structure; done requires a maintainer-agreed design for whether the dependency should be inverted and which files would change.