{ "coverage": { "by_status": { "ambiguous": 0, "context_only": 0, "direct": 9, "not_found": 0, "partial": 5, "possible": 0 }, "mapped_or_plausible": 14, "requirements_identified": 14 }, "coverage_explanation": "Denominator: the 14 data-object rows in `Target Fields` (`A2:J15`), because `Read Me!B8` explicitly designates that sheet as the authoritative register and states that the other sheets are synthetic illustrations. Every register row is marked required (`Target Fields!F2:F15`), corroborated by `Validation!B3`'s stored COUNTIF logic and `Validation!C3`. All 14 requested names and data types are present on current-gold page `fde-finance.current-model`. Coverage is reported at two levels: structural/name/type mapping is 100% (14/14); fully direct mapping is 64.3% (9/14), with the remaining 35.7% (5/14) partial because semantic values or measure logic are not established. Working-sheet formulas and samples are treated as contextual evidence only, not as additional denominator rows or proof that formulas recalculate successfully.", "limitations": [ "The current-gold boundary contains the observed model page and a separate journal-controls evidence page; absence outside these pages cannot be inferred. Only `fde-finance.current-model` was relevant to the authoritative register.", "Ordinary numeric, date and Boolean workbook values were intentionally excluded. Sample account keys, dates, ledger amounts, adjustment flags, budget assumptions and formula results could not be reconciled or data-tested.", "Workbook formulas are evidence of stored illustrative logic only; they are not proof that recalculation succeeds or that cached results are current.", "Exact DAX expressions for the four observed Metrics measures were not returned by the bounded current-gold reads, so calculation equivalence and production business semantics cannot be confirmed.", "The workbook has no discovered connections, external links, Power Query/DataMashup, pivots/charts or embedded data model. It is therefore a requirements/prototype artefact rather than evidence of an implemented connected semantic model.", "Comments, notes, hyperlinks, validation rules and conditional formatting were inspected and not found. This is distinct from truncation; the extraction reports zero omitted items.", "No workbook or sheet protection, VBA project, embedded objects or digital signatures were found. These package findings do not establish production Power BI security. Current gold reports zero model security roles in the audited snapshot, but external or production security requirements remain unknown.", "The workbook's synthetic working sheets are explicitly non-authoritative context (`Read Me!B8`, `Read Me!B10`); they were not counted as additional requested objects.", "The workbook describes a July-start fiscal year and stores corresponding formulas, but the production calendar's complete fiscal-year logic was not available for validation.", "Current gold observes hidden automatic date tables alongside the explicit Calendar; the workbook does not specify the intended automatic date/time policy." ], "report_markdown": "# Workbook-to-current-gold assessment\n\n## Interpretation and authority\n\nThe workbook appears to request a core finance semantic model for FY2026\u2013FY2027, comprising Account and Calendar dimensions, a posting-grain Ledger fact, and management P&L measures (`Read Me!B3`, `Read Me!B6`). The workbook explicitly states that **Target Fields is the authoritative register** and that working sheets contain fictional, synthetic records and formulas only to illustrate grain and intended behaviour (`Read Me!B8`, `Read Me!B10`). Accordingly, the 14 rows in `Target Fields!A2:J15` are the primary comparison denominator; the other sheets are used only as corroborating context.\n\nThere were no substantive consultant comments. The trusted consultant-guidance envelope therefore did not change the workbook-led interpretation.\n\n## Coverage result\n\n| Result | Count | Share of authoritative register |\n|---|---:|---:|\n| Direct | 9 | 64.3% |\n| Partial | 5 | 35.7% |\n| Possible | 0 | 0% |\n| Ambiguous | 0 | 0% |\n| Not found | 0 | 0% |\n| **Total** | **14** | **100%** |\n\nAt a structural level, all 14 requested objects have exact table/object-name matches and matching declared data types in `fde-finance.current-model`, so name/type coverage is **100%**. The distinction between direct and partial reflects whether the available gold evidence also establishes the requested semantics or calculation.\n\n## Mapping detail\n\n### Account\n\n- `Account.AccountKey` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Int64 stable identifier (`Target Fields!B2:I2`) is observed with the same table, name and type in `fde-finance.current-model`.\n- `Account.AccountName` \u2014 **direct**. The requested String display-name field (`Target Fields!B3:I3`) is observed with the same table, name and type in `fde-finance.current-model`.\n- `Account.AccountType` \u2014 **partial**. The String column exists exactly as requested (`Target Fields!B4:I4`) in `fde-finance.current-model`, but gold does not establish its domain semantics. Moreover, the authoritative definition says \u201cRevenue or expense classification,\u201d while the workbook's contextual sample also contains Asset, Liability and Equity (`Chart of Accounts!A3:C13`). The intended classification domain therefore needs clarification.\n\n### Calendar\n\n- `Calendar.DateKey` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Int64 YYYYMMDD-style date key (`Target Fields!B5:I5`) is observed in `fde-finance.current-model`; actual values were intentionally excluded from workbook evidence, so key formatting was not data-tested.\n- `Calendar.Date` \u2014 **direct**. The requested DateTime posting date (`Target Fields!B6:I6`) is observed with the same type and a date format in `fde-finance.current-model`.\n- `Calendar.FiscalMonth` \u2014 **direct with a configuration review**. The requested Int64 fiscal-month number (`Target Fields!B7:I7`) exists in `fde-finance.current-model`. The workbook context says the fiscal year starts in July and stores formulas calculating July as month 1 (`Fiscal Calendar!A2:C3`, `Fiscal Calendar!C4:C34`). Current gold also flags that the column is configured to summarise by Sum, which is likely inappropriate for a month-number attribute and should be reviewed.\n\n### Ledger\n\n- `Ledger.DateKey` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Int64 posting-date foreign key (`Target Fields!B8:I8`) exists in `fde-finance.current-model`, where an active many-to-one relationship to `Calendar.DateKey` is observed.\n- `Ledger.AccountKey` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Int64 account foreign key (`Target Fields!B9:I9`) exists in `fde-finance.current-model`, where an active many-to-one relationship to `Account.AccountKey` is observed.\n- `Ledger.SignedAmount` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Decimal reporting-currency amount (`Target Fields!B10:I10`) exists in `fde-finance.current-model` and is configured for summation. The contextual sheets describe reporting-sign convention and AUD management reporting (`Ledger Sample!A1:D3`, `Reference Data!A1:C2`), but gold does not independently establish currency-conversion or sign-governance rules.\n- `Ledger.IsAdjustment` \u2014 **direct**. The requested Boolean adjustment indicator (`Target Fields!B11:I11`) exists with the same type in `fde-finance.current-model`.\n\n### Metrics\n\nAll four qualified measure names are observed in `fde-finance.current-model`, but that page states that exact DAX expressions were not returned by the bounded reads. Consequently, existence maps directly while formula and business-semantic conformance remain unverified.\n\n- `Metrics.Actual Net` \u2014 **partial**. Exact measure name exists. The register defines it as actual revenue plus signed expense balances (`Target Fields!B12:I12`), corroborated by the prototype formula and notes (`Management P&L!A4:D6`, `Management P&L!B4:B6`). Production DAX is unavailable.\n- `Metrics.Actual Revenue` \u2014 **partial**. Exact measure name exists (`Target Fields!B13:I13`). The prototype uses account-key range 4000\u20134999 (`Management P&L!A4:D4`, `Management P&L!B4`), but current gold does not establish that the observed measure uses this range or an equivalent AccountType classification.\n- `Metrics.Budget Net` \u2014 **partial**. Exact measure name exists (`Target Fields!B14:I14`). The prototype defines budget net as budget revenue plus budget expenses (`Management P&L!A7:D9`, `Management P&L!B9`), but no business-facing budget table or source is documented on the current-gold model page and exact DAX is unavailable.\n- `Metrics.Net Variance` \u2014 **partial**. Exact measure name exists. The register defines Actual Net minus Budget Net (`Target Fields!B15:I15`), corroborated by `Management P&L!A10:D10` and `Management P&L!B10`; exact production DAX is unavailable.\n\n## Contextual architecture supported by the workbook and gold\n\nThe working sheets illustrate one row per account, a daily July-start fiscal calendar, posting-level ledger data, and a formula-driven management P&L (`Chart of Accounts!A1:C3`, `Fiscal Calendar!A1:C3`, `Ledger Sample!A1:D3`, `Management P&L!A1:D3`). Current gold independently observes a compatible ledger-star structure: Ledger relates actively to Account and Calendar, while Metrics contains the four requested measures (`fde-finance.current-model`). Gold additionally observes two hidden automatic date tables, including a relationship from `Calendar.Date`; the workbook does not state whether automatic date/time should coexist with the explicit fiscal Calendar.\n\n## Key questions\n\n1. Can the four production DAX expressions be obtained and tested against the workbook definitions, especially sign handling and Net Variance direction?\n2. What is the production source and grain for budget data underpinning `Budget Net`, given that no business-facing budget table is documented in the available current-gold model page?\n3. Should `AccountType` cover only Revenue and Expense, as stated in the authoritative register, or also Asset, Liability and Equity, as shown in the workbook's representative rows?\n4. Should `Calendar.FiscalMonth` be changed to Summarise by None?\n5. Is July definitively fiscal month 1 in production, and should automatic date/time tables be disabled in favour of the explicit fiscal Calendar?\n6. Are SignedAmount values always in AUD reporting currency, or is currency conversion required upstream or in the semantic layer?\n\n## Boundary statement\n\nThis assessment is limited to the available current-gold pages. A result of not found would mean not found in that discovered boundary, not enterprise-wide absence. In this case, no authoritative-register object is structurally not found.", "requirements": [ { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountKey column", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Account.AccountKey as Int64, matching the requested entity, name and data type. The stable-identifier business description is consistent with the observed key role, although workbook numeric values were excluded.", "requirement_id": "TF-01", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B2:I2", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountName column", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Account.AccountName as String, exactly matching the requested object and type.", "requirement_id": "TF-02", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B3:I3", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.9, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Account.AccountType column", "questions": [ "Should AccountType be restricted to Revenue/Expense for P&L use, or is it intended to represent the full balance-sheet and P&L classification domain?" ], "rationale": "The exact String column exists, but current gold does not establish its permitted values or classification semantics. The authoritative definition says Revenue or Expense, while the workbook's contextual sample also includes Asset, Liability and Equity.", "requirement_id": "TF-03", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B4:I4", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A3:C13", "sheet": "Chart of Accounts" } ], "status": "partial" }, { "confidence": 0.97, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.DateKey column", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Calendar.DateKey as Int64, exactly matching the requested object and type. The YYYYMMDD value convention cannot be verified because ordinary numeric values were intentionally excluded.", "requirement_id": "TF-04", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B5:I5", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.Date column", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Calendar.Date as DateTime with a date format, matching the requested posting calendar date.", "requirement_id": "TF-05", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B6:I6", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.95, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Calendar.FiscalMonth column", "questions": [ "Should FiscalMonth be configured as Summarise by None?", "Is July definitively fiscal month 1 in the production calendar?" ], "rationale": "Current gold observes Calendar.FiscalMonth as Int64. Workbook formulas consistently encode a July-start fiscal month. Gold flags the column's Summarise by Sum setting for review, but that configuration issue does not negate the direct structural match.", "requirement_id": "TF-06", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B7:I7", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A2:C3", "sheet": "Fiscal Calendar" }, { "coordinate": "C4:C34", "sheet": "Fiscal Calendar" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.DateKey column and calendar linkage", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Ledger.DateKey as Int64 and an active many-to-one Ledger.DateKey to Calendar.DateKey relationship, directly supporting the requested foreign-key role.", "requirement_id": "TF-07", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B8:I8", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.AccountKey column and account linkage", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Ledger.AccountKey as Int64 and an active many-to-one Ledger.AccountKey to Account.AccountKey relationship, directly supporting the requested foreign-key role.", "requirement_id": "TF-08", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B9:I9", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.96, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.SignedAmount column", "questions": [ "Are all production SignedAmount values already converted to AUD reporting currency, and where is that rule governed?" ], "rationale": "Current gold observes Ledger.SignedAmount as Decimal, formatted as currency and summarised by Sum. This directly matches the requested object/type; the workbook's AUD and reporting-sign context is not independently proven by gold.", "requirement_id": "TF-09", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B10:I10", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A1:D3", "sheet": "Ledger Sample" }, { "coordinate": "A1:C2", "sheet": "Reference Data" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.99, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Ledger.IsAdjustment column", "questions": [], "rationale": "Current gold observes Ledger.IsAdjustment as Boolean, exactly matching the requested object and type.", "requirement_id": "TF-10", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B11:I11", "sheet": "Target Fields" } ], "status": "direct" }, { "confidence": 0.9, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Metrics.Actual Net measure", "questions": [ "Does production DAX calculate Actual Net as Actual Revenue plus signed expense balances, with the same filter and sign conventions as the prototype?" ], "rationale": "The exact measure name is observed, but current gold did not return its DAX. Therefore the workbook's specified revenue-plus-signed-expenses calculation and sign convention cannot be confirmed.", "requirement_id": "TF-11", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B12:I12", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A4:D6", "sheet": "Management P&L" }, { "coordinate": "B4:B6", "sheet": "Management P&L" } ], "status": "partial" }, { "confidence": 0.88, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Metrics.Actual Revenue measure", "questions": [ "Is Actual Revenue defined by account-key range, AccountType, a reporting hierarchy, or another governed classification?" ], "rationale": "The exact measure name is observed, but its production DAX and semantics are unknown. The contextual workbook formula uses account keys 4000 through 4999; gold does not establish whether this or an AccountType-based rule is implemented.", "requirement_id": "TF-12", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B13:I13", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A4:D4", "sheet": "Management P&L" }, { "coordinate": "B4", "sheet": "Management P&L" } ], "status": "partial" }, { "confidence": 0.82, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Metrics.Budget Net measure", "questions": [ "What production data source and grain underpin Budget Net?", "Are Budget Revenue and Budget Expenses separate measures, columns, assumptions, or external inputs?" ], "rationale": "The exact measure name is observed, but exact DAX is unavailable. The current-gold model inventory does not document a business-facing budget fact/source, so the measure's data source, grain and calculation cannot be confirmed.", "requirement_id": "TF-13", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B14:I14", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A7:D9", "sheet": "Management P&L" }, { "coordinate": "B9", "sheet": "Management P&L" } ], "status": "partial" }, { "confidence": 0.9, "gold_page_ids": [ "fde-finance.current-model" ], "label": "Metrics.Net Variance measure", "questions": [ "Does production DAX implement Actual Net minus Budget Net and the stated favourable-positive convention?" ], "rationale": "The exact measure name is observed, but current gold did not return DAX. The required Actual Net minus Budget Net direction and favourable-positive convention therefore remain unverified.", "requirement_id": "TF-14", "source_cells": [ { "coordinate": "B15:I15", "sheet": "Target Fields" }, { "coordinate": "A10:D10", "sheet": "Management P&L" }, { "coordinate": "B10", "sheet": "Management P&L" } ], "status": "partial" } ], "review_flags": [ { "priority": 1, "queue_name": "revalidation", "reason": "Obtain and validate exact production DAX for all four requested measures against the workbook's definitions and sign conventions.", "subject": "TF-11, TF-12, TF-13, TF-14" }, { "priority": 2, "queue_name": "client_question", "reason": "Clarify the production budget source, grain and modelling approach; no business-facing budget table is documented in the available current-gold model page.", "subject": "TF-13" }, { "priority": 3, "queue_name": "client_question", "reason": "Resolve the conflict between the authoritative AccountType definition (Revenue/Expense) and representative rows that also use Asset, Liability and Equity.", "subject": "TF-03" }, { "priority": 4, "queue_name": "consultant_review", "reason": "Assess changing Calendar.FiscalMonth from Summarise by Sum to Summarise by None and confirm the July-start fiscal convention.", "subject": "TF-06" }, { "priority": 5, "queue_name": "mapping", "reason": "Decide whether hidden automatic date tables should coexist with the explicit fiscal Calendar.", "subject": "Calendar strategy" }, { "priority": 6, "queue_name": "client_question", "reason": "Confirm whether SignedAmount is always pre-converted to AUD and document currency/sign governance.", "subject": "TF-09" }, { "priority": 20, "queue_name": "scope", "reason": "Maintain the current-gold boundary caveat: this assessment proves mapping only within the available discovered landscape.", "subject": "workbook" } ], "summary": "The workbook explicitly makes `Target Fields` the authoritative register, containing 14 required objects: 10 columns across Account, Calendar and Ledger, plus four Metrics measures. Within the available current-gold boundary, all 14 objects have an exact table/object-name match and matching declared data type. Nine column requirements map directly. Five requirements are partial: `Account.AccountType` because its authoritative definition is narrower than the workbook's own representative categories and current gold does not establish its value semantics; and all four measures because their names are observed but exact DAX and production semantics were not available. Thus structural/name coverage is 14/14 (100%), while 9/14 (64.3%) are direct end-to-end mappings and 5/14 (35.7%) require semantic or calculation validation. No authoritative-register object is structurally not found in current gold." }