Explain why historical team totals changed after a roster update

Setup requirements

1. Use pseudonymous fixture member IDs; no actual employment records are needed for design.

2. The report owner defines whether attribution is based on close date or another event; current membership cannot fill missing history.

3. This report cannot be used to determine employment outcomes or compensation without a separate authorized human process.

4. Agree this bounded synthetic scope and confirm a real unresolved need before any implementation pilot. The written design does not authorize executing it.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   closed_deals.json

   Source or owner

   Sales reporting owner

   Scope

   Synthetic immutable deal IDs, closed dates, owner tokens, amounts, currencies and any owner-approved splits.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

2. Name

   team_membership_history.json

   Source or owner

   Authorized administrator

   Scope

   Synthetic member/team tokens with effective start/end dates and authoritative history references; no personnel reasons.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

3. Name

   report_snapshots.json

   Source or owner

   Report owner

   Scope

   Synthetic before/after totals, filter definitions and deal detail.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

4. Name

   attribution_rules.json

   Source or owner

   Report owner

   Scope

   Approved as-of date, team hierarchy, boundary convention, split handling and reporting scope.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

Human approval boundaries

1. Before a pilot, the accountable owner approves exact synthetic/minimized copies, processing environment, retention and allowed recipients.

2. Owner validates identity mappings, authority, status definitions and all unresolved evidence.

3. Any source mutation, account access, upload, external communication, commercial commitment, payment or changed permission requires separate appropriate authorization.

The problem

A current team roster can change the apparent history of closed deals. The report owner needs an effective-dated bridge that preserves past attribution without restoring a former user’s access.

Suggested task

Reconcile closed-deal amounts against owner-approved historical team memberships and compare with the current-roster report.

What you could produce

A historical attribution review, unchanged-deal control totals and missing membership intervals for the reporting owner.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent can reconcile incomplete history evidence and explain reporting changes. Temporal joins and control totals must be deterministic. If a historical-dimension table is complete, a BI query is preferable; no need for an agent to calculate a group-by.

When this work comes up

Role

Sales reporting administrator

Trigger

A team-filtered historical report changes after deactivation or team reassignment.

Human approval

Owner reviews scope, rules, identities and findings; operating decisions remain separately authorized.

Finished output

A historical attribution review, unchanged-deal control totals and missing membership intervals for the reporting owner.

Proposed evaluation scope — no pilot authorized

Scope

At most 20 pseudonymous members and 50 synthetic closed deals over two quarters; no personnel reasons or pay data.

Limit origin

Original editorial evaluation bound, not a verified tool limit.

Overflow action

Stop and request owner-approved partitioning; no silent truncation.

Pilot authorized

No

Evidence boundary

Source facts describe human friction; O*NET describes duties; shared official documentation supports file primitives. The six-step workflow, safeguards, numerical fixture and outputs are original proposed designs.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Freeze the unchanged deal population and both report definitions; isolate changes to deal facts from changes to dimensions.

   Output: Control population manifest.

   Expected output: Control population manifest.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner approves exact inputs and rule scope before any pilot.

2. 2

   Normalize approved membership intervals and detect gaps, overlaps and missing history.

   Output: Temporal membership exceptions.

   Expected output: Temporal membership exceptions.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

3. 3

   Join each deal’s approved attribution date to an unambiguous team interval and apply only supplied split rules.

   Output: Deal-to-historical-team bridge.

   Expected output: Deal-to-historical-team bridge.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

4. 4

   Aggregate amounts by team and currency; retain unassigned amounts so the grand total is conserved.

   Output: Historical totals with unassigned bucket.

   Expected output: Historical totals with unassigned bucket.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

5. 5

   Compare current-roster totals and explain membership timing effects separately from changed filters or deal amounts.

   Output: Before/after variance explanation.

   Expected output: Before/after variance explanation.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner reviews draft findings; no operational action authorized.

6. 6

   Prepare review tables and the acceptance specification; leave users, ownership and permissions untouched.

   Output: Reporting-owner packet.

   Expected output: Reporting-owner packet.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner accepts the review artifact; any live change or communication needs separate approval.

Original starter prompt — proposed

Origin

editorial_proposal

Execution authorized

No

Text

Using only {approved_synthetic_inputs} and {owner_rules}, Reconcile closed-deal amounts against owner-approved historical team memberships and compare with the current-roster report. Follow the six-step design. Preserve exact identities, source citations and uncertainty; make calculations inspectable. Write only separate review drafts to {approved_output_folder}. Do not guess missing facts, alter sources, access accounts, send, upload, buy, post, settle, make personnel decisions or claim the fixture passed.

Expected output schema — proposed

Primary key

1. deal_id

2. attribution_event_id

3. allocation_id

4. currency

Columns

1. owner_token

2. attribution_date

3. historical_team_id

4. membership_interval_id

5. allocated_amount

6. current_report_team

7. variance_reason

8. source_refs

9. hold_reason

Record status

draft_review_only

Common provenance columns

1. input_snapshot_id

2. rule_version

3. source_document_id

4. source_row_or_span

5. reviewer_decision

Unknown value policy

Unknown numeric values remain null, never zero. Preserve raw rows and typed relation/allocation IDs; unresolved rows do not silently enter approved totals.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Synthetic authored example, not observed output

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Input

D1

100

D2

200

D3 ambiguous

50

Expected

Team a

100

Team b

200

Unassigned

50

Grand total

350

Access change

No

Limits

1. Original proposed and untested design; no source documents this complete agent workflow.

2. A reported problem is not proof of prevalence, willingness to pay, harm magnitude or current demand.

3. Historical product reports require current-installation checks; a current capability document only establishes general primitives.

4. Native reports or a deterministic script may be simpler. Exports, identity mappings, context size, privacy controls and actual tool compatibility remain untested.

5. Numerical fixtures are synthetic and have not been executed. Owner review is necessary; no time saving, cost saving or revenue outcome is asserted.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

2. Name

   Claude

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

Failure modes

1. Current membership overwrites the historical team at close.

2. Overlapping intervals cause one deal to be counted twice.

3. The report is repurposed as an employee ranking or pay decision.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Signal

   Current membership overwrites the historical team at close.

   Recovery

   Hold missing history and preserve the original attribution event rather than guessing.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

2. Signal

   Overlapping intervals cause one deal to be counted twice.

   Recovery

   Route ambiguous intervals to the administrator and keep the amount in an unassigned bucket.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

3. Signal

   The report is repurposed as an employee ranking or pay decision.

   Recovery

   Remove evaluative conclusions and restrict the artifact to report reconciliation under owner review.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Member U1 belongs to Team A through June 30 and Team B from July 1, then is deactivated in October. D1 closes June 15 for 100 and D2 July 15 for 200. The current team report drops both. U2 has an overlapping membership interval and D3 worth 50. No splits are authorized. Membership intervals use an exclusive end: A ends July 1 at 00:00 and B starts then. Zero-amount boundary probes on June 30 and July 1 must map to A and B respectively.

Acceptance checks

1. D1 maps to A: 100 and D2 to B: 200, regardless of October deactivation.

2. D3 remains unassigned 50 because the overlapping intervals are unresolved; total 350 is conserved.

3. No deal appears in two team totals without an explicit split allocation summing to its amount.

4. The half-open date interval convention is checked at June 30/July 1 boundaries.

5. No user reactivation, password change, team edit, employee rating or commission change is proposed.

6. Every conclusion traces to approved source rows or an explicitly labelled owner rule; rerunning the same frozen input must not change identities or totals.

7. All source copies remain unchanged. Any duplicate, missing key, stale snapshot or conflicting authority is held visibly.

Stop conditions

1. Input scope, required identity or calculation policy is missing.

2. Unexpected real sensitive/personal data is supplied before handling approval.

3. The requested output would require live account access, external upload/send, accounting posting, purchase, access change or irreversible action.

Executed

No

Fixture status

Designed only; no acceptance fixture or workflow executed.

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Plan access, model usage, tool runtime and storage costs unknown.

2. Export preparation, evidence cleanup, review and correction effort unmeasured.

3. No native integration, paid service, new account or software installation assumed.

4. Case-specific effort is unknown: source extraction, identity repair, owner-rule preparation, fixture design and review may dominate model cost.

Caveat

No measured time saving, current demand, ROI or price claim. Compare the simpler remedy first.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Verify local privacy and organizational record-handling requirements before any real-data pilot; preserve original currency, business calendars and time zones. No Canadian deployment or compliance claim.