{
  "content": "# Power BI Data Readiness Assessment\n\n## Executive position\n\nThe assessed landscape provides a sound base for the stated core finance requirements, but it does not yet support the full reporting ambition.\n\nAcross **45 scope-bearing requirement instances**:\n\n| Position | Requirement instances | What it means |\n|---|---:|---|\n| Found in the current landscape | 24 | The requested object or capability was identified, although some require value or calculation validation |\n| Partially supported | 6 | Relevant source data or model components exist, but the complete requirement is not evidenced |\n| Not found | 15 | Further investigation, definition, implementation or acceptance evidence is required |\n\nThe counts are requirement instances, not unique data objects. Some common finance objects appear in more than one workbook.\n\nThe position differs materially by reporting area:\n\n- **Core finance structures and measures are substantially present.** One client workbook is fully matched, with all 14 declared requirements found. A second is largely ready, with 10 of 13 requirements found.\n- **Three finance enrichments remain open:** cost centre, transaction currency and account group.\n- **The customer and sales reporting requirement is not supported by the assessed landscape.** None of its eight requirements was found.\n- **The month-end adjustment control is only partially supported.** Source availability is indicated for journal source and approval status, but the completed control, exception measure, entry-level traceability and acceptance evidence are not established.\n\nThis supports a targeted funding decision rather than treating the estate as uniformly ready or uniformly deficient. The evidence points to three distinct bodies of work: closing the limited finance-model gaps, establishing the customer and sales capability if it remains in scope, and designing and delivering the month-end close control.\n\n### Important assessment boundary\n\nThe comparison is against the current gold wiki, which is limited to what the Power BI audit could access. **\u201cNot found\u201d means not found within that discovered landscape. It does not prove that the data or capability does not exist elsewhere in the client\u2019s estate.** Before committing to build missing items, the relevant source and system owners should therefore confirm whether they already exist outside the assessed boundary.\n\n### Status of confirmation\n\nNone of the 45 scope-bearing findings has an explicit consultant decision recorded against it.\n\n| Basis | Requirement instances |\n|---|---:|\n| Consultant-confirmed decisions | 0 |\n| Unreviewed model findings carried as the working position | 45 |\n\nThe findings below are therefore suitable for planning and scope definition, but they are not yet agreed item-by-item facts. Two of the partial findings are specifically marked as weaker assumptions.\n\n## Readiness by assessed input\n\n| Assessed input | Readiness band | Found | Partially supported | Not found | Executive interpretation |\n|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|\n| `TargetArchitecture_Match.xlsx` | Ready | 14 | 0 | 0 | All declared finance requirements were identified. Remaining questions are validation checks, not identified implementation gaps. |\n| `TargetArchitecture_Partial.xlsx` | Largely ready | 10 | 0 | 3 | The finance foundation is present, but cost centre, currency and account-group reporting are not evidenced. |\n| `TargetArchitecture_CompleteMiss.xlsx` | Material gaps | 0 | 0 | 8 | The requested customer and sales-order capability was not identified in the assessed landscape. |\n| Month-end close adjustment controls | Material gaps | 0 | 6 | 4 | Components and upstream attributes provide a starting point, but the complete control and its acceptance evidence are not established. |\n\n## What is already there\n\nThe assessed landscape contains the principal objects requested for the core finance model:\n\n- account key, name and type;\n- calendar date, date key and fiscal month;\n- ledger links to calendar and account;\n- signed ledger amount;\n- adjustment indicator; and\n- the requested Actual Net, Actual Revenue, Budget Net and Net Variance measures.\n\nThe fully matched finance workbook contains **14 direct matches**. The largely ready finance workbook contains **10 direct matches**.\n\nThis is meaningful coverage, but it is structural coverage rather than proof of production correctness. The available evidence did not establish ordinary cell values, source reconciliation or exact calculation logic for the four observed measures.\n\n## Finance gaps requiring targeted work\n\nThree requested finance attributes were not found in the assessed landscape.\n\n| Requirement | Reporting consequence if left open | Matters to resolve |\n|---|---|---|\n| `Ledger.CostCentre` | The assessed model does not evidence operating-area accountability at ledger level. | Source availability at posting grain, whether a separate dimension is required, and ownership of the hierarchy and effective dating |\n| `Ledger.CurrencyCode` | Transaction-currency analysis is not evidenced. | Availability on each posting, the need for transaction amount and exchange-rate fields, and whether a governed currency dimension is required |\n| `Account.AccountGroup` | The requested management-account roll-up is not evidenced. | Authoritative mapping source and owner, hierarchy rules, multiple-group membership and effective dating |\n\nThese are bounded additions to an otherwise substantially matched finance structure. Their source availability and governance remain to be confirmed before implementation scope can be finalised.\n\n## Customer and sales reporting\n\nNone of the eight customer and sales requirements was found within the assessed landscape:\n\n- customer identifier;\n- customer segment;\n- relationship owner;\n- sales-order identifier;\n- gross order value;\n- sales channel;\n- Customer Lifetime Value; and\n- Gross Order Intake.\n\nThe current evidence is finance-ledger oriented. It does not establish customer or sales-order entities, their relationships or the two requested commercial measures.\n\nIf this reporting area remains a priority, the work is broader than adding two calculations. It requires confirmation and definition of the underlying customer and sales-order data, including:\n\n- governed customer and order identifiers;\n- customer segmentation and ownership history;\n- the treatment of order amendments, cancellations and returns;\n- sales-channel attribution;\n- gross-value and currency rules;\n- the event and date that define booked order intake; and\n- the approved commercial definition of Customer Lifetime Value.\n\nLeaving this area open means the assessed landscape cannot currently be relied upon to provide the requested customer segmentation, relationship accountability, order-intake reporting or customer-value analysis.\n\n## Month-end close adjustment control\n\nThe month-end control has a viable starting point, but it is not ready as a completed control.\n\n### Partially supported components\n\nSix requirements have some supporting evidence:\n\n| Requirement | Current position |\n|---|---|\n| Monthly close-control view | Ledger amount, adjustment and calendar components exist, but no delivered control view or reporting-pack sign-off workflow is evidenced. |\n| `Ledger.JournalSource` | A consultant evidence page states that it is available in the governed ledger export at ledger-entry grain, but it was not observed in the audited model. |\n| `Ledger.ApprovalStatus` | A consultant evidence page states that it is available upstream, but it was not observed in the audited model. |\n| Preserve entry-level grain | Upstream evidence supports the intended grain, but no unique ledger-entry key or implemented grain conformity was established. This is a weak-signal assumption. |\n| Calculate the exception value | Signed amount and adjustment components exist and approval status is supported upstream, but the requested calculation was not observed. |\n| Reconcile to a governed export | A governed ledger export is referenced, but no completed closed-month reconciliation, tolerance or acceptance record was evidenced. This is a weak-signal assumption. |\n\n### Requirements not yet evidenced\n\nThe four remaining requirements should not all be treated as the same type of gap:\n\n| Requirement | Nature of the open item |\n|---|---|\n| `Metrics.Unapproved Adjustment Value` | Implementation gap: the requested measure was not observed. |\n| Drill-through to the original ledger entry | Implementation and traceability gap: no entry key, reference, link or drill-through page was evidenced. |\n| Explicit definition of late approvals | Control-definition gap: the relevant event, timestamp and treatment of subsequent approvals have not been defined. |\n| Consultant confirmation that approved adjustments are excluded | Acceptance-evidence gap: no implemented calculation or consultant acceptance record was present. |\n\nUntil these matters are resolved, the assessed landscape does not establish a close control that finance can use to identify unapproved manual adjustments before pack sign-off, trace exceptions to original entries and reconcile the result for a closed month.\n\n## Validation still required for matched finance items\n\nThe remaining questions against matched objects are validation activities, not evidence that the objects are missing.\n\nThe principal checks are:\n\n- whether `Calendar.DateKey` follows the required YYYYMMDD encoding and is unique;\n- whether fiscal month numbering uses the intended July start;\n- whether `Calendar.FiscalMonth` should be configured not to summarise;\n- whether signed amounts follow the intended reporting-currency and sign conventions;\n- what operational rule populates the adjustment indicator;\n- whether AccountType covers the intended balance-sheet and profit-and-loss classifications; and\n- whether the four observed finance measures implement the required calculation definitions and filter behaviour.\n\nExact calculation expressions for the observed measures were not available. Their names and presence support a match, but do not prove calculation equivalence.\n\nA Management P&L prototype also raised questions about separate Actual Expenses, Budget Revenue and Budget Expenses measures. This was classified as contextual only because those measures were not part of the authoritative register. It creates no current scope obligation and is excluded from all readiness counts.\n\n## Funding priorities\n\nThe evidence supports the following order of decision and investment:\n\n1. **Confirm the working findings.** Obtain consultant decisions on the 45 scope-bearing items, prioritising the 21 items currently marked as proposed work and the two weak-signal assumptions.\n2. **Close the three defined finance gaps.** Confirm source availability and governance for cost centre, currency and account grouping before committing to model changes.\n3. **Decide whether customer and sales reporting remains in scope.** If it does, fund source discovery and business-definition work before treating the eight missing requirements as build-ready.\n4. **Treat the month-end control as a complete control deliverable.** Scope its data attributes, entry-level traceability, calculation, report view, late-approval definition, reconciliation and acceptance evidence together.\n5. **Validate rather than rebuild matched finance objects.** The matched objects require targeted semantic and value-level checks; the evidence does not identify them as missing implementation.\n\nNo cost or effort estimate was supplied in the evidence bundle, so this assessment does not price these work areas.\n\n## Evidence limitations relevant to the decision\n\nThe client workbooks document requirements and prototype logic. They do not establish implemented source connectivity, refresh paths or embedded semantic models. Their working records are described as fictional or synthetic.\n\nOrdinary numeric, date and Boolean cell values were deliberately excluded from the evidence. Sample values, amounts, dates, adjustment flags, budgets and formula results therefore could not be reconciled. Stored formulas show intended logic, but do not prove successful recalculation or current results.\n\nNothing in this assessment asserts that a target solution has been built, deployed or adopted.\n\n## Received but not assessed\n\nThree received workbook records were inspected but never compared with current gold. They support no finding in this report and have not been silently included in the readiness position.\n\n| Received record | Sheets | Assessment status |\n|---|---:|---|\n| `TargetArchitecture_Partial.xlsx` | 5 | Not assessed |\n| `TargetArchitecture_Match.xlsx` | 5 | Not assessed |\n| `TargetArchitecture_CompleteMiss.xlsx` | 6 | Not assessed |\n\nThese records bear the same filenames as assessed inputs but were separately recorded as not assessed. No conclusion is drawn from their contents.",
  "id": "resp_083c6b26665554c0016a6c2bd359348191abae31162b88cb7e",
  "model": "codex",
  "status": "draft",
  "usage": {
    "completion_tokens": 3709,
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "accepted_prediction_tokens": null,
      "audio_tokens": null,
      "reasoning_tokens": 1332,
      "rejected_prediction_tokens": null
    },
    "prompt_tokens": 23275,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "audio_tokens": null,
      "cache_write_tokens": null,
      "cached_creation_tokens": 0,
      "cached_tokens": 0
    },
    "total_tokens": 26984
  }
}