Investigate conflicting business evidence for a board decision

Why use this

1. A decision-maker preparing board materials may encounter several plausible versions of the same business figure. Differences in filters, dates or definitions can become hidden when a presentation selects one number without explaining why.

2. This job could trace the discrepancy and preserve the reconciliation choices in a data appendix and executive brief. The decision-maker can then verify material figures against the authoritative system before relying on them in a consequential discussion.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Follow evidence across sources, identify competing definitions and explain which reconciliation remains provisional.

Simpler alternative

Use a single authoritative report when all stakeholders agree on scope and definitions.

Unsuitable when

The task would bypass source-owner verification or present unresolved figures as established facts.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Decision brief

   Owner

   Decision owner

   Minimum scope

   Board question, relevant metrics and approved scope

   Quality check

   Separate decision assumptions from required facts

2. Name

   Evidence pack

   Owner

   Authorized source owners

   Minimum scope

   Relevant tracker, message, document and dashboard snapshots

   Quality check

   Record filters, timestamps and source authority

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read scoped copies and prepare private decision drafts; no broad source grants or live dashboard changes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current connector access, dashboard reproducibility, export fidelity and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Sharing confidential business information, publishing board materials or making strategic commitments requires explicit approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Decision presentation outline, data appendix and executive brief with unresolved verification checkpoints.

Critical checks

1. Trace each material number; align dates/filters; retain contradictions; require authoritative-system verification before sharing.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Two totals use different customer definitions

   Why it matters

   A numerical reconciliation can conceal semantic conflict

   Proposed response

   Document definitions and present comparable alternatives.

2. Signal

   A live chart changes after capture

   Why it matters

   The appendix no longer supports the headline

   Proposed response

   Record the snapshot context and request refreshed verification.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Identify decision-critical metrics and authoritative owners.

Ongoing review

1. Owners verify figures and reviewers challenge recommendation assumptions.

Unknowns

1. Source completeness, reconciliation effort, dashboard access and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a tracker total, dashboard total and message explanation using different date windows and customer definitions; draft a reconciliation note.

Acceptance checks

1. Explain differences without forcing agreement; flag remaining verification; make no board-ready accuracy claim.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if authority or metric definitions remain unresolved or confidential sharing is unapproved.

Limits

1. A reconciled narrative cannot establish business truth beyond its evidence or validate the resulting strategic decision.