Aglet

Verify Partial Period Comparison Labels

Partial-period verification tests whether a reader can tell what each window contains before interpreting its delta. Use closed and open periods with equal and unequal coverage. Compare filter state, included rows, labels, chart annotations, and export context so a correct calculation still communicates its limits.

Check whether the outcome improved

  1. Define completeness assertions

    Write expected start and end, elapsed duration, closed or open state, alignment rule, included rows, and comparison wording for every fixture. State the behavior for an incomplete current window. A pass requires the report to identify whether it is to-date or complete.

  2. Exercise calendar edges

    Run period starts, end-of-day boundaries, missing days, same-weekday windows, and an open current period. Compare cards, tables, charts, exports, and narrative text. Preserve refresh timestamp and source revision with each result so a moving window is not confused with a mismatch.

  3. Review the decision context

    Ask a reviewer to explain which periods and days the delta compares, whether either window is partial, and what the label permits them to conclude. Record bounded coverage for unsupported calendars. Keep evidence for date filters and included rows rather than relying on a rendered trend alone.

What to carry forward

Verification passes when period edges, completeness, alignment, and comparison wording agree across reviewed surfaces. Report a bounded pass for uncovered calendars. Keep verification inconclusive when a partial current period looks complete or the export omits the basis a reader needs.

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