Fictional single-source procedure
All people, versions, decisions and dates are fictional. This is not a user test. These are source materials and expected answers; observed time, routes and results belong in the blank worksheet.
Index
| Question | Short answer | Current source | Owner | Review / trigger | Old copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What if a report lacks days? | Hold, check the source and the complete result | R-01 v2 below | Petra | January 10, 2027 or a source change | V1 marked superseded and points to v2 |
R-01
Version v2 · owner Petra · fictional review October 10, 2026. Purpose: avoid presenting an incomplete week as complete. Inputs: original export, expected period and independent control totals. Retain the original and work on a copy.
- Compare client, account, currency and every expected day. Do not treat a missing day as zero activity without verifying the source rule.
- Set “on hold” if a day is missing. Petra checks the source and sets the next review; do not send the report yet.
- After repair, recheck the entire period, keys and independent totals. The responsible person then decides whether to send.
V2 adds an explicit every-day check and hold on a gap. The old v1 note did not address completeness and must no longer be used. For actual work, the site provides sample data and detailed report checks. The team chooses its internal operating version and owner; a public article does not prove the team adopted it.
Expected answers for both formats
- Procedure: hold, check the source, then verify the entire repaired result.
- Petra owns the exception; the next check needs a specific agreed date.
- V2 change: inspect all expected days and never automatically replace missing days with zero.
The format decision remains open. Ask a colleague to find these answers in both formats without showing the route. Do not show the expected-answer section first. Repair an inaccessible reference before comparing formats; a permission failure does not establish that the other tool is better.