{ "coverage": { "by_status": { "ambiguous": 0, "context_only": 0, "direct": 10, "not_found": 3, "partial": 0, "possible": 0 }, "mapped_or_plausible": 10, "requirements_identified": 13 }, "coverage_explanation": "Primary denominator: 13 rows in `Target Fields` (rows 2\u201314), because Read Me!B8 explicitly identifies that sheet as the authoritative register, and Validation!C3 says all register rows are required. Directly mapped: 10/13 (76.9%). Not found in available current gold: 3/13 (23.1%). The direct matches are exact business-facing table/column names with matching observed types. Direct status confirms structural presence, not source lineage, population, detailed business semantics, or production readiness. The three absent enrichment objects are structurally absent from the only available current-state gold page and are therefore `not_found`, subject to the stated audit boundary. Working sheets were treated as corroborating context only: the prototype P&L lists seven metrics, of which `Actual Revenue`, `Actual Net`, `Budget Net`, and `Net Variance` are observed as measures; `Actual Expenses`, `Budget Revenue`, and `Budget Expenses` are not observed. Those prototype metrics are not included in the 13-object coverage denominator because the workbook says the working sheets illustrate behaviour and the authoritative register does not declare measures.", "limitations": [ "Only one current-gold page was available, covering the bounded audited Power BI Desktop semantic model.", "Not found means not found within the available current-gold boundary; it is not proof of enterprise-wide absence.", "The XLSX extraction deliberately excludes numbers, formulas and non-text content, so sample amounts, formula definitions, calculated results and reconciliation status could not be assessed.", "Exact DAX expressions for the four observed measures were not returned by the bounded audit reads.", "The available gold does not establish source-system lineage, refresh behaviour, data quality, field population, fiscal-calendar rules, currency conversion logic, or production readiness.", "Synthetic values in the workbook were treated as design context only, in accordance with Read Me!B8 and Read Me!B10." ], "report_markdown": "# Workbook-to-current-gold assessment\n\n## Interpretation and authority\n\nThe workbook appears to request a finance reporting extension for management analysis, particularly organisational and transaction-currency enrichment (Read Me!B3). The planning horizon is FY2026\u2013FY2027 (Read Me!B6).\n\nThe workbook explicitly states that **`Target Fields` is the authoritative register of requested data objects** and that the working sheets contain synthetic records and formulas illustrating grain and intended report behaviour (Read Me!B8). It also states that sample values are fictional and not intended for reconciliation or production reporting (Read Me!B10). Accordingly, the 13 register rows at Target Fields!A2:J14 are the primary comparison denominator; the other sheets are treated as contextual evidence.\n\nNo consultant steering comments were supplied beyond the instruction to respect scoped comments, so guidance did not change the workbook-derived interpretation.\n\n## Coverage result\n\n| Result | Count | Share of authoritative register |\n|---|---:|---:|\n| Direct | 10 | 76.9% |\n| Not found in available current gold | 3 | 23.1% |\n| **Total** | **13** | **100%** |\n\nAll 13 register rows are marked required (Target Fields!F2:F14), corroborated by Validation!C3. The current-gold model contains exact structural matches for the existing account, calendar and core-ledger fields. It also confirms active many-to-one relationships from `Ledger.DateKey` to `Calendar.DateKey` and from `Ledger.AccountKey` to `Account.AccountKey` [fde-finance.current-model].\n\nThe requested enrichment fields `Ledger.CostCentre`, `Ledger.CurrencyCode`, and `Account.AccountGroup` are not present in the discovered business-facing columns [fde-finance.current-model]. This means they were not found within the available audit boundary, not that they are absent across the enterprise estate.\n\n## Directly mapped requested objects\n\nThe following requested columns are observed under the same table and column names, with matching data types, in current gold [fde-finance.current-model]:\n\n- `Account.AccountKey` (Target Fields!B2:E2)\n- `Account.AccountName` (Target Fields!B3:E3)\n- `Account.AccountType` (Target Fields!B4:E4)\n- `Calendar.DateKey` (Target Fields!B5:E5)\n- `Calendar.Date` (Target Fields!B6:E6)\n- `Calendar.FiscalMonth` (Target Fields!B7:E7)\n- `Ledger.DateKey` (Target Fields!B8:E8)\n- `Ledger.AccountKey` (Target Fields!B9:E9)\n- `Ledger.SignedAmount` (Target Fields!B10:E10)\n- `Ledger.IsAdjustment` (Target Fields!B11:E11)\n\nStructural presence does not establish the planned source shown in Target Fields!I2:I11, actual data population, or full semantic equivalence. In particular:\n\n- The register defines `SignedAmount` as being in reporting currency (Target Fields!E10), while gold confirms the decimal column and currency formatting but does not establish currency-conversion lineage or content [fde-finance.current-model].\n- The working calendar says the fiscal year starts in July (Fiscal Calendar!A2), but gold only establishes the presence of `DateKey`, `Date`, and `FiscalMonth`; it does not document the fiscal-year rule [fde-finance.current-model].\n- Gold notes that `Calendar.FiscalMonth` currently summarises by Sum, which is likely undesirable for a month-number attribute and should be reviewed [fde-finance.current-model].\n\n## Requested enrichment not found\n\nThree required objects have no supporting object in current gold:\n\n1. `Ledger.CostCentre` \u2014 requested for operating-area accountability (Target Fields!B12:J12); illustrated at posting grain in Ledger Sample!E3:E15 and with reference codes in Reference Data!A1:A4.\n2. `Ledger.CurrencyCode` \u2014 requested for transaction-currency analysis (Target Fields!B13:J13); illustrated at posting grain in Ledger Sample!F3:F15 and with reference values in Reference Data!C1:C4.\n3. `Account.AccountGroup` \u2014 requested for management roll-ups (Target Fields!B14:J14); illustrated in Chart of Accounts!D3:D13.\n\nThe current model inventory lists only three `Account` columns and four `Ledger` columns, none of which are these enrichment fields [fde-finance.current-model].\n\n## Contextual report behaviour\n\nThe Management P&L working sheet is explicitly a formula-driven prototype (Management P&L!A1:A2), not part of the authoritative object register. It names seven metrics at Management P&L!A4:A10:\n\n- Gold observes measures named `Actual Revenue`, `Actual Net`, `Budget Net`, and `Net Variance` [fde-finance.current-model].\n- Gold does not list measures named `Actual Expenses`, `Budget Revenue`, or `Budget Expenses` [fde-finance.current-model].\n- Exact DAX expressions were not returned by the bounded audit, so the workbook\u2019s stated sign and variance behaviour at Management P&L!C4:D10 cannot be validated against implementations [fde-finance.current-model].\n\nThis contextual overlap suggests the current model already supports part of the intended management P&L presentation, but it does not change the authoritative 10-of-13 field coverage result.\n\n## Material uncertainties and design issues\n\n- `AccountType` is defined in the register as a \u201cRevenue or expense classification\u201d (Target Fields!E4), while the synthetic chart also illustrates Asset, Liability and Equity values (Chart of Accounts!C4:C13). The intended allowed domain should be clarified.\n- The July fiscal-year-start statement (Fiscal Calendar!A2) cannot be verified from current gold.\n- Planned-source lineage in Target Fields!I2:I14 is not documented by the available current-gold page.\n- The workbook contains text metadata only; numeric samples, formulas and formula results were intentionally excluded. No amounts, reconciliation conclusions or formula correctness have been inferred.\n- Current gold is bounded to the audited Desktop model. A not-found result is not evidence of estate-wide absence.", "requirements": [ { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountKey", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Account.AccountKey` column is observed in current gold as Int64, matching the requested object name, entity and type. Gold does not verify the planned chart-of-accounts source or the business claim of identifier stability.", "requirement_id": "TF-02", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A2:J2", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountName", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Account.AccountName` column is observed as String, matching the register. Source lineage and display-name governance are not established by gold.", "requirement_id": "TF-03", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A3:J3", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.97, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountType", "questions": [ "Should AccountType support only Revenue/Expense, or the broader Asset/Liability/Equity/Revenue/Expense domain illustrated in the chart-of-accounts sheet?" ], "rationale": "Exact `Account.AccountType` String column is observed. However, the authoritative definition says revenue or expense classification, while the synthetic chart also uses Asset, Liability and Equity; this semantic-domain inconsistency does not negate structural presence.", "requirement_id": "TF-04", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A4:J4", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "C3:C13", "sheet": "Chart of Accounts" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.DateKey", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Calendar.DateKey` Int64 column is observed. Current gold also shows it as the one-side key used by the active relationship from `Ledger.DateKey`. The YYYYMMDD value convention is not independently validated.", "requirement_id": "TF-05", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A5:J5", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.Date", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Calendar.Date` DateTime column is observed with date formatting. The planned enterprise fiscal-calendar lineage is not evidenced.", "requirement_id": "TF-06", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A6:J6", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.98, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.FiscalMonth", "questions": [ "Does the observed FiscalMonth numbering implement the workbook\u2019s July-start fiscal year, and should the column be changed to Do not summarize?" ], "rationale": "Exact `Calendar.FiscalMonth` Int64 column is observed. Gold flags its current default summarisation as Sum, likely inappropriate for a month-number attribute. The contextual July fiscal-year start is not documented in gold.", "requirement_id": "TF-07", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A7:J7", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A2:C3", "sheet": "Fiscal Calendar" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.DateKey", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Ledger.DateKey` Int64 column is observed, with an active many-to-one relationship to `Calendar.DateKey`. Gold does not establish posting-source lineage.", "requirement_id": "TF-08", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A8:J8", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.AccountKey", "questions": [], "rationale": "Exact `Ledger.AccountKey` Int64 column is observed, with an active many-to-one relationship to `Account.AccountKey`. Gold does not establish posting-source lineage.", "requirement_id": "TF-09", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A9:J9", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.95, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.SignedAmount", "questions": [ "Is SignedAmount already converted to a single reporting currency, and what conversion-rate/date policy is applied?", "Is the intended positive/negative sign convention formally defined for all account types?" ], "rationale": "Exact `Ledger.SignedAmount` Decimal column is observed and formatted/summarised as a currency amount. The workbook\u2019s reporting-currency semantics and reporting-sign convention cannot be validated from the available metadata.", "requirement_id": "TF-10", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A10:J10", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A1:C3", "sheet": "Ledger Sample" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.98, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.IsAdjustment", "questions": [ "What source rule classifies late and manual postings as adjustments?" ], "rationale": "Exact `Ledger.IsAdjustment` Boolean column is observed. Gold does not expose population rules distinguishing late versus manual adjustments.", "requirement_id": "TF-11", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A11:J11", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.CostCentre", "questions": [ "Which posting source supplies CostCentre, and at what level of completeness and history?", "Is a separate Cost Centre dimension required, or is a ledger attribute sufficient?", "How should cost-centre codes map to operating areas and ownership?" ], "rationale": "The requested required posting-level `Ledger.CostCentre` column is not present in the discovered Ledger inventory, which contains only DateKey, AccountKey, SignedAmount and IsAdjustment. The synthetic sheets corroborate intended usage but do not prove implementation.", "requirement_id": "TF-12", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A12:J12", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "E3:E15", "sheet": "Ledger Sample" }, { "coordinate": "A1:A4", "sheet": "Reference Data" } ], "status": "not_found" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.CurrencyCode", "questions": [ "Which finance posting field supplies the ISO transaction currency code?", "Will transaction amount and exchange-rate fields also be needed to support meaningful transaction-currency analysis?", "Is CurrencyCode required historically for every ledger posting?" ], "rationale": "The requested required posting-level `Ledger.CurrencyCode` column is not present in the discovered Ledger inventory. The workbook illustrates AUD and NZD values, but samples are explicitly fictional and do not establish an implemented source.", "requirement_id": "TF-13", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A13:J13", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "F3:F15", "sheet": "Ledger Sample" }, { "coordinate": "C1:C4", "sheet": "Reference Data" } ], "status": "not_found" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountGroup", "questions": [ "Where is the account-to-management-group mapping governed, versioned and owned?", "Can one account belong to more than one management reporting group, or is the mapping strictly one-to-one?", "How should mapping changes be handled historically?" ], "rationale": "The requested required `Account.AccountGroup` String column is not present in the discovered Account inventory, which contains only AccountKey, AccountName and AccountType. The chart-of-accounts working sheet illustrates grouping values but does not prove an implemented mapping.", "requirement_id": "TF-14", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "A14:J14", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "D3:D13", "sheet": "Chart of Accounts" } ], "status": "not_found" } ], "review_flags": [ { "priority": 1, "queue_name": "mapping", "reason": "CostCentre is a required management-accountability enrichment but is absent from the discovered Ledger table; source and dimensional design must be established.", "subject": "TF-12" }, { "priority": 2, "queue_name": "mapping", "reason": "CurrencyCode is required for transaction-currency analysis but is absent; confirm source, historical completeness and whether transaction amount/rate objects are also needed.", "subject": "TF-13" }, { "priority": 3, "queue_name": "mapping", "reason": "AccountGroup is required for management roll-ups but absent; identify the governed account mapping and history strategy.", "subject": "TF-14" }, { "priority": 4, "queue_name": "consultant_review", "reason": "The workbook specifies a July fiscal-year start, which cannot be verified in gold, and FiscalMonth currently summarises by Sum.", "subject": "Fiscal calendar semantics" }, { "priority": 5, "queue_name": "client_question", "reason": "The authoritative definition limits AccountType to revenue/expense, while the synthetic chart includes asset, liability and equity categories.", "subject": "AccountType domain" }, { "priority": 6, "queue_name": "evidence_research", "reason": "Four of seven contextual metric names are observed, three are not, and exact DAX was unavailable; validate formulas and intended sign/variance behaviour if the prototype is in scope.", "subject": "Management P&L measures" }, { "priority": 7, "queue_name": "scope", "reason": "Confirm whether the seven prototype P&L metrics are future implementation requirements despite not being declared in the authoritative Target Fields register.", "subject": "workbook" } ], "summary": "The workbook explicitly makes `Target Fields` the authoritative register (Read Me!B8). That register contains 13 required data-object rows, all marked required. Within the available current-gold boundary, 10 of 13 requested objects map directly by table, column name and observed data type (76.9% direct coverage). The three management-enrichment fields\u2014`Ledger.CostCentre`, `Ledger.CurrencyCode`, and `Account.AccountGroup`\u2014are not found in the discovered current model. The workbook\u2019s other sheets are synthetic/design context rather than the primary denominator. They indicate an intended July-start fiscal calendar and a seven-line management P&L prototype; gold confirms four of those seven metric names but does not expose exact DAX, while three prototype metric names are not observed. No consultant comments materially altered the interpretation because the supplied guidance contained no workbook- or sheet-specific comments." }