Build a report that reconciles to its source

Before you begin

• Spreadsheet onramp; inspect the worked fixture before beginning.
• A text editor/spreadsheet for the manual route. Hosted Python/Jupyter for code exercises; applicable dependencies are in requirements.txt.
• For actual AI calls, a legitimate available cloud service and authorised learner credentials; no particular provider or country is mandatory.

Free original, non-accredited practice. Self-review is not independent assessment. No particular provider, payment platform or country is mandatory; use a legitimate available route or explicitly labelled manual practice.

Define the reporting question

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Choose a question the supplied rows can actually answer. Inspect the supplied input before using any tool. Write the decision rules in your own words and calculate one small result independently. The reference output is an answer key for this deliberately bounded fixture, not proof of general capability. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total. For learners across regions underserved or excluded by mainstream providers: verify country eligibility, language, account/identity requirements, data terms, cost, quota and connectivity before choosing a cloud service. Use only legitimate available alternatives; never bypass restrictions or invent a country/account. No service access? Complete the labelled manual/fixture route without claiming a live AI run.

Worked example

SOURCE (authored fixture):
{
  "rows": [
    {
      "category": "repairs",
      "amount": 12
    },
    {
      "category": "supplies",
      "amount": 7
    },
    {
      "category": "repairs",
      "amount": 8
    }
  ]
}
INDEPENDENT FIXTURE TARGET:
{
  "rows": 3,
  "categories": {
    "repairs": 20,
    "supplies": 7
  },
  "total": 27
}

Your practical task

1. Choose a question the supplied rows can actually answer.
2. Open input.json and expected.json from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record a manual prediction and the relevant rule before consulting the answer key.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Define the reporting question — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Add supplies 3: supplies becomes 10 and total 30.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Reconcile a hand calculation

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Calculate subtotals independently before using a spreadsheet or AI. Establish a baseline before changing prompts or code. Keep the original input immutable. Record expected values, observed values and whether each comparison passed. If the expected file conflicts with a justified policy, investigate rather than forcing a convenient match. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.

Worked example

MANUAL BASELINE / compare every named field
{
  "rows": 3,
  "categories": {
    "repairs": 20,
    "supplies": 7
  },
  "total": 27
}
Keep a separate observed-result column; the answer key is not a model response.

Your practical task

1. Calculate subtotals independently before using a spreadsheet or AI.
2. Open input.json and expected.json from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Reconcile a hand calculation — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Rename repairs to Repairs: decide and document whether to normalise case.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Create a repeatable summary

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Keep transformations and aggregation rules visible. Build one inspectable transformation or bounded AI prompt. Keep calculation and validation deterministic where possible. If you make a permitted hosted call, save the actual response separately from the authored examples and verify its material claims; the supplied reference never simulates a live model. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.

Worked example

PROJECT CONTRACT:
Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.
HOSTED REFERENCE: open hosted-lab.ipynb or run reference.py with all fixture files together.
EXPECTED CONSTRUCTED RESULT:
{
  "rows": 3,
  "categories": {
    "repairs": 20,
    "supplies": 7
  },
  "total": 27
}

Your practical task

1. Keep transformations and aggregation rules visible.
2. Open hosted-lab.ipynb and the reference code from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform Remove a row: totals must change; do not keep a cached narrative.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Create a repeatable summary — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Remove a row: totals must change; do not keep a cached narrative.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Check changes and exclusions

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Add a row and verify that formulas include it. Change one assumption at a time and predict the result first. Retain the failure, the revision and the rerun evidence. A failure is useful information: hiding a bad output or editing a test target after seeing the answer destroys the value of the experiment. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.

Worked example

CHANGE TESTS — predict before running:
1. Add supplies 3: supplies becomes 10 and total 30.
2. Rename repairs to Repairs: decide and document whether to normalise case.
3. Remove a row: totals must change; do not keep a cached narrative.
Keep the original expected.json unchanged.

Your practical task

1. Add a row and verify that formulas include it.
2. Open failure-tests.md from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform Add supplies 3: supplies becomes 10 and total 30.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Check changes and exclusions — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Add supplies 3: supplies becomes 10 and total 30.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Write only supported conclusions

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Do not let a confident narrative invent causes or trends. Review what the fixture cannot establish. Explain who owns the decision, where human approval is needed and which access or professional constraints remain. Do not describe a small educational success as production readiness, certification, legal compliance or a guarantee. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total. For learners across regions underserved or excluded by mainstream providers: verify country eligibility, language, account/identity requirements, data terms, cost, quota and connectivity before choosing a cloud service. Use only legitimate available alternatives; never bypass restrictions or invent a country/account. No service access? Complete the labelled manual/fixture route without claiming a live AI run.

Worked example

REVIEW BOUNDARY:
Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.

ACCESS / NOT TESTED: unavailable provider, unsupported language and absent external feedback must remain explicit.

Your practical task

1. Do not let a confident narrative invent causes or trends.
2. Open README.md and your evidence log from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record the human decision owner, limitations and any untested service access.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Write only supported conclusions — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Rename repairs to Repairs: decide and document whether to normalise case.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Deliver an auditable report pack

A report is a chain from input rows to claims. Reconcile numbers before making a chart, preserve excluded records and state the scope. A tiny fictional table can support a subtotal, not a claim about a national economy or a cause of business performance. Include source, cleaned data, calculations, chart and limitations. Deliver a reproducible bundle rather than a screenshot alone. Include inputs, rules, output, failure tests, a short README and residual limitations. Ask another person to follow the instructions if possible; self-review and actual external review must be labelled separately. Policy for this project: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total.

Worked example

HANDOFF MANIFEST:
input.json — immutable source
expected.json — fixture answer key
actual.json — result actually observed
evidence-log.csv — baseline plus three changes
README.md — reproduction and access route
limitations.md — unresolved failures, rights, approvals and scope
Never bundle a credential.

Your practical task

1. Include source, cleaned data, calculations, chart and limitations.
2. Open README.md and your evidence log from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record the human decision owner, limitations and any untested service access.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Deliver an auditable report pack — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Remove a row: totals must change; do not keep a cached narrative.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Capstone self-review

Score each criterion 0 (missing), 1 (partial), or 2 (demonstrated). A self-review pass needs at least 8/10 and 2/2 on the critical safety/limits criterion. This is learner practice feedback, not verified assessment.

• Defined task and preserved input: Original input and the project policy are retained; the actual question is clear.
• Checked baseline: The supplied baseline reconciles field by field; unsupported live-run claims are absent.
• Three failure/change tests: All three specified changes have predictions, observed results and explanations.
• Repeatable handoff: Another person can follow the README; supporting practice evidence and unresolved limits are included.
• Safety, rights and access honesty — critical: Amounts are fictional whole units. Keep categories exact and expose the row count, category subtotals and grand total. Regional access route is legitimate; credentials and private data are absent; manual/constructed work is clearly labelled.

Review questions

Practice files

• README.md
• evidence-log.csv
• expected.json
• failure-tests.md
• hosted-lab.ipynb
• input.json
• lab_engine.py
• reference.py
• requirements.txt

References and editorial limits

Original authored practice material; deterministic fixtures build-tested. Not independently expert-reviewed or learner-validated. Time estimates unvalidated.

• Pandas grouping guide

Browse all build paths → · Curriculum overview