SeeTheWork / Evidence brief

Data & analytics

Synthetic sample

Simulation: Explain a change in reported revenue
Work product: Query + decision memo
Evidence sources: 4 illustrative excerpts

Reviewer summary

The metric is reconciled. The cause needs more evidence.

The sample separates duplicate records from the underlying revenue trend, checks the revised totals, and avoids turning a descriptive result into a causal claim. [04]

Competency evidence

Checks data quality before interpretation

Supported in this example

[01][02]

Reconciles the metric definition

Supported in this example

[03]

Distinguishes observation from cause

Follow-up needed

[04]

Source register

All excerpts below are illustrative, including filenames and check results. They explain the review method and contain no real candidate data.

[01]
Data audit
Illustrative
Locate duplicate order records.
quality_checks.sql
```
SELECT order_id, COUNT(*)
FROM orders
GROUP BY order_id
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1;
```
What it supports
The query identifies orders represented by multiple rows before aggregation.
What remains open
Repeated rows may be legitimate updates; the order lifecycle must also be understood.
Back to competency evidence
[02]
Query excerpt
Illustrative
Make the counting rule explicit.
revenue_analysis.sql
```
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
  PARTITION BY order_id
  ORDER BY updated_at DESC
) AS version
-- Aggregate the latest paid record per order.
```
What it supports
The sample uses an explicit order-level rule instead of counting every update as new revenue.
What remains open
Refunds, currencies, and late-arriving updates need separate accounting rules.
Back to competency evidence
[03]
Reconciliation check
Illustrative
Reconcile the reported total.
reconciliation.md · illustrative result
```
CHECK latest order IDs are unique: passed
CHECK paid-order totals reconcile: passed
CHECK null revenue rows are isolated: passed
```
What it supports
These illustrative checks connect the aggregation to the chosen definition and input records.
What remains open
Internal reconciliation does not establish that the business definition itself is correct.
Back to competency evidence
[04]
Decision memo
Illustrative
Separate the finding from the explanation.
findings.md
```
“Duplicate updates inflated the earlier view.
The corrected series still declines.
We have not established why customers changed.”
```
What it supports
The memo distinguishes a reporting issue from a remaining business question.
What remains open
Segment, cohort, and external-event analysis would be needed before proposing a cause.
Back to competency evidence

See what the reviewer receives.

The metric is reconciled. The cause needs more evidence.

Checks data quality before interpretation

Reconciles the metric definition

Distinguishes observation from cause

Locate duplicate order records.

Make the counting rule explicit.

Reconcile the reported total.

Separate the finding from the explanation.