{
  "coverage": {
    "by_status": {
      "ambiguous": 0,
      "context_only": 0,
      "direct": 12,
      "not_found": 0,
      "partial": 2,
      "possible": 0
    },
    "mapped_or_plausible": 14,
    "requirements_identified": 14
  },
  "coverage_explanation": "Primary denominator: the 14 rows in the authoritative `Target Fields` register (`Read Me`!B8; `Target Fields`!A2:J15). Every row is marked required, consistent with `Validation`!C3. Exact current-gold counterparts were observed for all 10 requested columns and all four requested measures on `fde-finance.current-model`. Direct coverage is assigned where entity, object name, type and available business meaning align. `Actual Net` and `Net Variance` are partial rather than direct because the workbook specifies calculations (`Target Fields`!H12 and H15), while the gold page states that exact DAX expressions were not returned; their existence and high-level meanings are confirmed, but formula equivalence is not. Working sheets were treated as corroborating context, not additional denominator items, because the workbook explicitly says they contain synthetic records and formula illustrations (`Read Me`!B8, B10). The prototype also names Actual Expenses, Budget Revenue and Budget Expenses (`Management P&L`!A5:A9), but these are not rows in the authoritative register and were therefore not counted as requested objects.",
  "limitations": [
    "The XLSX extraction deliberately excludes numbers, formulas and non-text content; no sample amounts, formula results, row counts or reconciliation outcomes were inferred.",
    "Current gold is bounded to the available discovered Power BI landscape. A not-found result would mean not found within that boundary, not enterprise-wide absence; in this assessment all authoritative objects were found.",
    "The current-gold build did not expose exact DAX expressions for the four measures, limiting formula validation.",
    "Exact physical/source lineage for the planned chart-of-accounts master, enterprise fiscal calendar, general-ledger postings and finance calculation layer is not established by the available page.",
    "The workbook working sheets contain synthetic examples and are explicitly non-production; they corroborate concepts but do not prove implemented grain, values, fiscal rules, currency conversion or calculation correctness.",
    "The observed model contains hidden automatic date tables in addition to the explicit Calendar table; the intended production date-table strategy is not documented.",
    "No security roles were observed in the current model snapshot, but the workbook does not state security requirements, so security coverage cannot be assessed."
  ],
  "report_markdown": "# Workbook-to-current-gold assessment\n\n## Interpretation basis\n\nThe workbook describes a **Finance Reporting Data Dictionary \u2014 Core Model** (`Read Me`!A1) intended to document core finance dimensions, posting facts and management measures (`Read Me`!B3), with a planning horizon of FY2026\u2013FY2027 (`Read Me`!B6). It explicitly states that **Target Fields is the authoritative register** and that working sheets contain synthetic examples and formula illustrations (`Read Me`!B8). Sample values are fictional and unsuitable for reconciliation or production reporting (`Read Me`!B10).\n\nNo substantive consultant steering comments were supplied. Accordingly, no workbook-level or sheet-level consultant comment changed the interpretation.\n\n## Coverage result\n\n| Result | Count | Share of authoritative register |\n|---|---:|---:|\n| Direct | 12 | 85.7% |\n| Partial | 2 | 14.3% |\n| Possible / ambiguous / not found | 0 | 0% |\n| **Any object-level match** | **14** | **100%** |\n\nAll 14 declared objects have exact entity-and-name counterparts in the observed current model (`fde-finance.current-model`). The observed model is a small Import ledger star with Account, Calendar, Ledger and Metrics business-facing tables, matching the workbook's declared structure.\n\n## Requirement findings\n\n### Account dimension\n\nThe three required Account attributes\u2014AccountKey, AccountName and AccountType (`Target Fields`!A2:J4)\u2014are directly present with matching data types in current gold. The representative chart-of-accounts sheet corroborates the intended one-row-per-account grain and headings (`Chart of Accounts`!A2:C3), but its fictional account values were not used as mapping evidence.\n\n### Calendar dimension\n\nDateKey, Date and FiscalMonth (`Target Fields`!A5:J7) are directly present with matching data types. The workbook's context says the calendar is daily grain and the fiscal year starts in July (`Fiscal Calendar`!A2), while Reference Data also states July (`Reference Data`!A3:C3). Current gold confirms the fields but does not establish that fiscal-year logic is implemented as intended. It also flags `Calendar.FiscalMonth` as summarised by Sum, which is likely unsuitable for a month-number attribute and needs review.\n\n### Ledger fact\n\nDateKey, AccountKey, SignedAmount and IsAdjustment (`Target Fields`!A8:J11) are directly present with matching data types. Current gold additionally confirms active many-to-one relationships from Ledger.DateKey to Calendar.DateKey and Ledger.AccountKey to Account.AccountKey. The synthetic ledger sheet corroborates posting-level grain and reporting-sign convention (`Ledger Sample`!A1:D3), but no numeric records were available or inferred.\n\n### Measures\n\nAll four authoritative measures exist by exact qualified name in Metrics:\n\n- Actual Revenue is a direct match (`Target Fields`!A13:J13).\n- Budget Net is a direct object-and-meaning match (`Target Fields`!A14:J14), although its underlying budget inputs and lineage are not visible in current gold.\n- Actual Net is partial (`Target Fields`!A12:J12): current gold confirms the measure and the meaning \u201cnet actual result\u201d, but its DAX was unavailable, so the stated calculation \u201cActual Revenue plus signed expense balances\u201d cannot be verified.\n- Net Variance is partial (`Target Fields`!A15:J15): current gold confirms the measure and meaning \u201cActual net less budget net\u201d, but exact DAX equivalence cannot be verified.\n\nThe Management P&L prototype corroborates these measure concepts and sign conventions (`Management P&L`!A4:D10). It also includes Actual Expenses, Budget Revenue and Budget Expenses, but those are not declared in the authoritative Target Fields register and are therefore treated only as contextual prototype concepts, not missing authoritative requirements.\n\n## Overall conclusion\n\nThe workbook appears to request the same core semantic-model surface already observed in current gold: three Account columns, three Calendar columns, four Ledger columns and four management measures. Structural coverage is complete within the discovered boundary. Remaining uncertainty is concentrated in implementation semantics rather than object presence: exact measure DAX, fiscal-calendar behavior, budget lineage, source-system realization and production controls were not established by the available gold evidence.",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "confidence": 0.99,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Account.AccountKey column",
      "questions": [
        "Is AccountKey generated in the chart-of-accounts master or assigned in the semantic-model ingestion layer?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Account.AccountKey` as an Int64 business-facing column. Entity, name and data type match the authoritative register. Gold does not independently validate the planned chart-of-accounts source or identifier stability.",
      "requirement_id": "R01",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A2:J2",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.99,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Account.AccountName column",
      "questions": [],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Account.AccountName` as a String column, matching the declared finance account display-name attribute.",
      "requirement_id": "R02",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A3:J3",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.96,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Account.AccountType column",
      "questions": [
        "Should AccountType support only Revenue/Expense for P&L logic, or the broader Asset/Liability/Equity/Revenue/Expense domain illustrated on `Chart of Accounts`?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Account.AccountType` as a String column. The workbook describes revenue or expense classification, while its synthetic context also shows Asset, Liability and Equity values; the column exists, but the complete permitted classification domain should be clarified.",
      "requirement_id": "R03",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A4:J4",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.97,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Calendar.DateKey column",
      "questions": [
        "Is the YYYYMMDD encoding enforced and unique for every calendar row?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Calendar.DateKey` as Int64. The workbook's YYYYMMDD convention is plausible but cannot be validated from text-only gold metadata.",
      "requirement_id": "R04",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A5:J5",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.99,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Calendar.Date column",
      "questions": [
        "Should the explicit Calendar table be marked as the model date table, and should automatic date/time tables be disabled?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Calendar.Date` as DateTime with date formatting, matching the requested posting calendar date.",
      "requirement_id": "R05",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A6:J6",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.93,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Calendar.FiscalMonth column",
      "questions": [
        "Does FiscalMonth number July as month 1, and is that logic implemented for all required years?",
        "Should summarisation be changed from Sum to None?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Calendar.FiscalMonth` as Int64. However, gold flags that it is configured to summarise by Sum, likely inappropriate for a month-number attribute. Gold does not verify the July fiscal-year rule stated elsewhere in the workbook.",
      "requirement_id": "R06",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A7:J7",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.99,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Ledger.DateKey column",
      "questions": [],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Ledger.DateKey` as Int64 and confirms an active many-to-one relationship to `Calendar.DateKey`, matching its requested foreign-key role.",
      "requirement_id": "R07",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A8:J8",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.99,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Ledger.AccountKey column",
      "questions": [],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Ledger.AccountKey` as Int64 and confirms an active many-to-one relationship to `Account.AccountKey`, matching its requested foreign-key role.",
      "requirement_id": "R08",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A9:J9",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.96,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Ledger.SignedAmount column",
      "questions": [
        "Is SignedAmount always converted to the declared AUD reporting currency before loading?",
        "What source-side or model-side rule assigns reporting signs by account type?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Ledger.SignedAmount` as Decimal with currency formatting and Sum summarisation. The workbook's reporting-currency and sign-convention claims are not independently validated by metadata alone.",
      "requirement_id": "R09",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A10:J10",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.98,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Ledger.IsAdjustment column",
      "questions": [
        "Which posting categories qualify as late or manual adjustments, and is this flag source-provided or derived?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold directly observes `Ledger.IsAdjustment` as Boolean, matching the requested adjustment indicator structurally and semantically at the available level.",
      "requirement_id": "R10",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A11:J11",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.88,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Metrics.Actual Net measure",
      "questions": [
        "Please expose or review the Actual Net DAX against the workbook calculation and reporting-sign convention.",
        "Which AccountType values are included or excluded from signed expense balances?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold observes the exact measure `Metrics.Actual Net` and describes it as net actual result. The workbook additionally specifies `Actual Revenue plus signed expense balances`, but the bounded audit did not return exact DAX, so calculation equivalence cannot be confirmed.",
      "requirement_id": "R11",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A12:J12",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "partial"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.94,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Metrics.Actual Revenue measure",
      "questions": [
        "What account filter or hierarchy defines revenue for this measure?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold observes the exact measure `Metrics.Actual Revenue` with the same business meaning, total actual revenue. No explicit workbook formula is declared, so formula-level validation is outside the available evidence.",
      "requirement_id": "R12",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A13:J13",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Metrics.Budget Net measure",
      "questions": [
        "Where do budget revenue and budget expense values originate, given that no business-facing budget fact object is described in current gold?",
        "Is Budget Net based on embedded assumptions, another model object, or an external source not reached by the audit?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold observes the exact measure `Metrics.Budget Net` and describes it as budget net result, matching the declared object and meaning. The current page does not expose budget fact tables, inputs, source lineage or DAX, so implementation provenance remains unknown.",
      "requirement_id": "R13",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A14:J14",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "direct"
    },
    {
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "gold_page_ids": [
        "fde-finance.current-model"
      ],
      "label": "Metrics.Net Variance measure",
      "questions": [
        "Please verify the Net Variance DAX is exactly Actual Net minus Budget Net under the intended filter context.",
        "Should favourable-positive presentation be encoded in the measure, formatting, or report layer?"
      ],
      "rationale": "Current gold observes the exact measure `Metrics.Net Variance` and gives the same high-level meaning, actual net less budget net. Exact DAX was not returned, so the workbook's specified subtraction and treatment of blanks, filters and sign cannot be validated.",
      "requirement_id": "R14",
      "source_cells": [
        {
          "coordinate": "A15:J15",
          "sheet": "Target Fields"
        }
      ],
      "status": "partial"
    }
  ],
  "review_flags": [
    {
      "priority": 1,
      "queue_name": "revalidation",
      "reason": "Actual Net exists, but its explicit workbook calculation cannot be checked because exact DAX was unavailable.",
      "subject": "R11"
    },
    {
      "priority": 2,
      "queue_name": "revalidation",
      "reason": "Net Variance exists, but exact DAX and favourable-positive behavior require validation.",
      "subject": "R14"
    },
    {
      "priority": 3,
      "queue_name": "evidence_research",
      "reason": "Budget Net exists without visible budget inputs, fact structure or source lineage in current gold.",
      "subject": "R13"
    },
    {
      "priority": 4,
      "queue_name": "consultant_review",
      "reason": "FiscalMonth is configured to summarise by Sum and the July-start fiscal logic is not evidenced in gold.",
      "subject": "R06"
    },
    {
      "priority": 5,
      "queue_name": "consultant_review",
      "reason": "An explicit Calendar coexists with hidden automatic date tables; intended date-table configuration should be confirmed.",
      "subject": "date-table strategy"
    },
    {
      "priority": 6,
      "queue_name": "client_question",
      "reason": "Actual Expenses, Budget Revenue and Budget Expenses appear in the prototype but not in the authoritative Target Fields register; confirm whether they are intentionally out of scope or omitted.",
      "subject": "Management P&L contextual metrics"
    },
    {
      "priority": 7,
      "queue_name": "evidence_research",
      "reason": "Planned source systems, AUD conversion and reporting-sign implementation are declared or implied by the workbook but not established in current gold.",
      "subject": "source lineage and currency"
    },
    {
      "priority": 20,
      "queue_name": "scope",
      "reason": "No model security roles were observed and the workbook is silent on security; determine whether RLS or other access controls are required.",
      "subject": "production security scope"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "The workbook explicitly makes `Target Fields` the authoritative register of requested data objects (`Read Me`!B8). That register contains 14 required objects: 10 columns across Account, Calendar and Ledger, plus four Metrics measures. Within the available current-gold boundary, every declared object has an exact-name, exact-entity counterpart in the observed semantic model. Twelve requirements map directly; two measure requirements map partially because their workbook calculations are explicit but the current audit did not expose DAX expressions for validation. Object-level coverage is therefore 14/14 (100%), with 12/14 direct and 2/14 partial. This is strong evidence that the workbook describes the same core finance model currently observed, but it does not prove source-system lineage, fiscal-calendar implementation, calculation correctness, or production readiness. No substantive consultant comments were supplied, so consultant guidance did not alter the workbook-led interpretation."
}