Aglet

Investigate Partial Period Report Logic

A partial-period investigation needs closed, open, equal-length, and unequal-weekday fixtures. Rebuild included rows and comparison values independently, then compare labels and narrative across surfaces. The brief should distinguish a date predicate error from a deliberate to-date measure lacking its completeness context.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Freeze calendar fixtures

    Create rows around period start, end, and the current refresh boundary. Record closed and open flags, elapsed units, weekdays, included rows, and expected comparison wording. Keep one missing-day case and one future-dated row if the report's calendar permits them.

  2. Trace boundaries and math

    Capture date control state, predicate edges, grouped values, current and reference aggregates, delta, percentage, and chart labels. Compare the report with an independent calendar table. Mark the first stage that drops a day, includes a future row, or hides the incomplete status.

  3. Test one alignment rule

    Rerun the fixtures with calendar, elapsed-time, and same-weekday alignment one at a time. Compare totals, narrative, export context, and reader interpretation. Treat the chosen rule as a policy hypothesis until the metric or reporting owner confirms which comparison the decision needs.

What to carry forward

The investigation is ready when the brief names the calendar fixture, first boundary divergence, comparison output, label gap, and tested alignment alternatives. Recommend a scoped date or explanation change. Keep the conclusion narrow when period policy is still being chosen.

Technical background: Google Cloud documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow