Chapters · 7 of 9

About 16 min · Lesson and activity

Chapter 7 of 90 complete

Connect Summary Metrics to the Records

Every summary opens, and one of them gets read on purpose.

See the situation

Start with the situation below. Next, we will work through an example together before you try the activity.

Elena · Reporting lead

The case

The field and the record disagree

Drill-through helps inspect records. Reconciliation and invariant checks can also expose a wrong aggregate.

What the reason field reports: A small share
What the free-text notes say: Several times more often
Was the field broken?: No
Who fills it in: People, at the least interesting moment of their day
How anybody found out: By reading the records

Your task

Inspect the source rows. Classify the evidence, then count distinct events instead of duplicate rows.

Need a little guidance?

You’re done when: The claim survives record-level inspection or is revised when the evidence contradicts it.

A useful report lets a skeptical reader investigate the number.

Need a reminder? Reopen the worked example

Watch one example first

A dashboard counts four rows, but two rows share the same event ID. Notes can agree with each row while the aggregate still double-counts the event.

Why this follows from the evidence

Drill-through inspects evidence; reconciliation also checks aggregation invariants, such as one count per distinct eligible event ID under this definition.

GTM Lab

Saved locally

Metric Dictionary and Reporting Brief · 0 of 9 sections started

Saved locally to your browser.

Case evidence

The field and the record disagree

What the reason field reports: A small share
What the free-text notes say: Several times more often
Was the field broken?: No
Who fills it in: People, at the least interesting moment of their day
How anybody found out: By reading the records

The field and the records disagree, and the only reason anybody knows is that somebody read them. Add a path from every number to its records, then write the check.

Check the case below to save your activity result and this chapter’s prepared example plan section. You can inspect that template in the saved plan above; no live records are changed.

Inspect the prepared example

Inspect source rows, then test the aggregate

One row has direct evidence for a category change, one is ambiguous, and one repeats an existing loss-event ID. Compare the structured reason with its source note, then verify the count using distinct events rather than rows.

D-101LOSS-101Field: CompetitorEvaluator selected Acme Co. The record has one loss event.

D-102LOSS-102Field: PriceBuyer said the quoted package exceeded the approved budget.

D-103LOSS-103Field: OtherBuyer explicitly said Acme Co. was selected because it had the required integration.

D-104LOSS-104Field: CompetitorNote discusses a competitor feature but does not say it affected the decision.

D-105LOSS-104Field: CompetitorDuplicate event rowSecond source row for the same loss event; do not count this as another loss.

Proposed handling for D-103Proposed handling for D-104Which reconciliation check catches accidental duplicate counting?

Current and proposed competitor classificationCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.

Current and proposed competitor classification
Item	Before	Proposed view	Why
Distinct competitor loss events	2 events in the prepared field	2 if the supported recode is applied	0 supported recodes proposed; 0 ambiguous records held for review.
Rows versus unique events	3 competitor-labeled rows	2 distinct events before recoding	1 row repeats an event ID and must not inflate the aggregate.

Distinct competitor loss events: Before2 events in the prepared field; Proposed view2 if the supported recode is applied; Why0 supported recodes proposed; 0 ambiguous records held for review.
Rows versus unique events: Before3 competitor-labeled rows; Proposed view2 distinct events before recoding; Why1 row repeats an event ID and must not inflate the aggregate.

Restoring this data activity…

Optional: compare alternative reasoning

The case tool above saves your result and completes this activity. These comparisons are extra practice; they do not change your saved plan.

Work the case · 0 of 2 sections drafted

Open the number

Compare these alternatives one section at a time. Check a choice to see its consequence; the draft summary below keeps the proposed changes together.

Step 1 of 2

What does drill-through actually buy you?

It is one useful way to challenge the aggregate, alongside reconciliation, invariant checks, and calculation tests.It reduces the number of questions the analyst has to field.It lets curious readers explore the detail behind a figure.

This is a proposed draft until the chapter check runs. Selecting a choice alone does not complete the chapter.

4b · Proposed

Metric definition draft

Metric definition draft · current draftCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.

Metric definition draft · current draft
Item	Before	Proposed	Why
What does drill-through actually buy you?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
A reason field reports one rate and the notes on those records tell a different story. What is the conclusion?	No saved change in this exercise draft	Not drafted yet	Choose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

What does drill-through actually buy you?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.
A reason field reports one rate and the notes on those records tell a different story. What is the conclusion?: BeforeNo saved change in this exercise draft; ProposedNot drafted yet; WhyChoose a proposal to see what it would add to the draft.

A choice appears here as a proposal, not as evidence that a live system changed.

Your place saves as you go.

Chapter 7 of 90 complete