# Decision-scoped data readiness

Start with one report or decision and the records needed to check it. Decide which missing or unreliable inputs stop that job before proposing broader cleanup. This worksheet does not establish organization-wide data quality, access permission, accounting treatment, production readiness, or distribution approval.

## Start with these questions

1. What report or decision must someone be able to check?
2. Which records does that check require, and who can confirm the approved versions?
3. Which missing, stale, or conflicting input would stop the work?
4. What is the smallest permitted repair, and who will maintain it?

## Completed hypothetical assessment

### Decision and boundary

- Decision: prepare a September freight-cost commentary packet for one department and account, for finance review only.
- Accepted result: a source-reconciled packet with attributable explanations and visible unresolved facts, accepted for the stated internal review use through a recorded finance-reviewer decision. The reviewer can reject it or request evidence instead; a generated draft alone does not count as accepted.
- Excluded: forecasts, journal entries, payments, distribution, other departments, and customer-level analysis.
- Grain: one department/account/period total. Currency: CAD. No currency conversion in this exercise.
- Sign convention: actual minus plan. Positive cost variance means spending above plan. A target finance owner must approve its own convention and zero-plan handling.
- Reference arithmetic when approved inputs are available: CAD 120,000 actual minus CAD 100,000 plan = CAD +20,000; +20,000 / 100,000 × 100 = +20%.

### Required source checks and unresolved evidence

| Source or gap      | Hypothetical assessment                                                                                        | Disposition                                                                                    |
| ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Actuals            | Controller names approved close snapshot `act-sep-7`; permitted department/account/period extract is available | Verify uniqueness, coverage, and reconciliation to that snapshot before use                    |
| Plan               | A file named latest-plan exists, but its approval and applicable revision are unknown                          | Blocking: request the approved version from the plan owner; do not use zero or infer a version |
| Older actuals copy | `act-sep-6` predates the close correction                                                                      | Blocking if used; retrieve and reconcile the approved revision                                 |
| Owner explanation  | Logistics owner cites a September carrier-rate amendment; no evidence allocates the entire variance to it      | Preserve attribution and uncertainty; do not invent a complete cause                           |
| Account mapping    | A proposed department/account cross-reference needs owner review                                               | Keep candidate separate; do not publish a remapped figure before review                        |
| CRM addresses      | Duplicate mailing addresses exist, but this bounded packet has no customer-address dependency                  | Outside scope, with this reason; revisit if a later decision uses them                         |

The arithmetic describes an available-input example. It is not permission to substitute an illustrative plan for the missing approved plan in this assessment.

### Four separate uses

| Use                    | Purpose and access                                                                                         | Retention and correction boundary                                                                                                                                                                              |
| ---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Operational records    | Approved actuals and plan for this reviewer and bounded population; source owners control the access scope | Source records remain under finance's existing policy; packet copies need a separately confirmed retention rule                                                                                                |
| Interpretive context   | Approved materiality policy and attributable owner explanation for review                                  | Retain references and applicable revisions; owner corrects conflicting or superseded explanations                                                                                                              |
| Evaluation references  | Permitted cases and separately checked expected answers used to test the packet                            | Keep grading answers out of the model's drafting request. Before collecting cases, record who approved their use and expected answers, who may see them, when they need review, and how long they may be kept. |
| Telemetry and feedback | Run status, source revisions, exceptions, and reviewer decisions for operating diagnostics                 | Minimize fields; raw finance amounts are unnecessary for this proposed status log; logging retention and correction use remain unapproved                                                                      |

Runtime access does not grant training use. Reviewer corrections are not automatically labels. An explanatory document does not grant action or distribution authority.

### Repair alternatives and economics

- First repair candidate: obtain the approved plan, confirm matching keys, and reconcile the narrow extract. Finance data and plan owners must accept the evidence.
- Mapping alternatives: repair upstream codes; maintain an owner-reviewed derived mapping; use a bounded manual export; or defer the comparison.
- One-time cost: not yet estimated. Must include extraction, profiling, mapping review, tests, privacy checks, and handoff.
- Recurring cost: not yet estimated. Must include changed mappings, revised sources, permission changes, missing explanations, reviewer burden, and support.
- Workflow value ceiling: not yet established. No economic readiness claim is available.
- Maintenance owner: finance data owner is proposed, but capacity and backup coverage are not accepted.
- Lineage: retain source and mapping revisions, calculation version, explanation references, draft configuration, prior packet, and reviewer disposition. A later correction creates a candidate beside the prior packet.

### Decision

- Status: remediation required; critical plan authority, retention, economic fit, and operating capacity remain unresolved.
- Disposition: pause actual-versus-plan commentary. Continue permitted investigation to obtain the approved plan and scope the repair.
- Fallback: retain the existing manual finance review. A figures-only packet is only a proposed narrower alternative; the reviewer has not accepted it here.
- Next accountable move: plan owner supplies the approved revision; finance data owner checks reconciliation and confirms the operating scope; workflow owner decides repair budget and reviewer capacity.
- Unknowns remain visible. This hypothetical record establishes no customer acceptance or implemented capability.

## Blank assessment for your own decision

Begin with the promised result, its reviewer, and the sources that result requires. Mark a missing answer as unknown. Then complete the permission and repair questions for those sources; you do not need to investigate unrelated datasets.

### Decision, population, and verifier

- What decision is needed, and what result may the service prepare?
- Which records qualify, and which are excluded?
- What does one row represent (its grain), and which IDs match records across sources?
- Which period, timezone, currency, and calculation rules apply?
- What result can be accepted, and who independently checks it?
- Who owns the workflow, and when is the decision needed?
- What is the largest error or effect the owner will tolerate?

### Sources and decision-critical quality

For each report, file, or query, name the person who can confirm it is the approved source. Record which revision applies, when its contents were last updated, which records and fields you may read, and any known correction or conflicting source. Say what one row represents and which IDs let you match it to the other source.

| Field or source | Decision use | Required quality and evidence | Blocking / constrained / outside scope | Fallback and owner |
| --------------- | ------------ | ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------ |
|                 |              |                               |                                        |                    |

Check whether required rows are missing or repeated, the values have the required meaning and format, totals reconcile to the approved report, and the contents are current enough for this decision. Explain why an excluded dataset is irrelevant. If you cannot establish a required source's quality, leave that check unresolved rather than passing it.

### Separate permitted uses

Separate four uses: records used to do the work; policies and explanations used to interpret them; cases and checked answers used for testing; and logs or feedback kept to operate the service. For each use, answer:

- What is this use for, and who is accountable for it?
- Which customer's records, rows, and fields may be used? Who may receive them, and at which destinations?
- Which other uses are prohibited, including training unless separately approved?
- How sensitive are the records, how long may they be kept, and how will they be deleted or corrected?
- Who separately checks and approves the expected test answers, and how are those answers kept out of the model's drafting request?
- Which permissions or obligations remain unknown and block this use?

### Preparation and economics

- Which repairs will you compare with narrower scope, human collection, the manual fallback, or not building?
- Which original inputs and revisions will you retain?
- Which versions of the mapping, preparation, and calculation were used, and how were they checked?
- Keep the proposed revised finance report beside the prior report; who checks which differences affect the decision before accepting the revision?
- What is the full one-time repair cost, and what supports that estimate?
- What is the recurring cost, and what supports that estimate?
- How much can this workflow justify spending, and what remains uncertain?
- Who maintains the repair, with what available time and backup? How will they detect and recover from a failure?

### Scoped decision

- Disposition: continue / remediate / constrain / pause / do not build:
- Passed checks and exact evidence:
- Failed or unknown prerequisites:
- Conditions, owners, and deadlines:
- Approved fallback and who runs it:
- Review date and invalidation triggers:
- Remaining source, access, evaluation, delivery, and operating approvals:

Do not mark the workflow ready while critical evidence or approvals are missing. A completed worksheet is a decision record, not permission to read data, call a model, change records, or distribute a report.