Work Output: Reports
Objective. Build or open a report with its scope, period and filters explicit, and read every exported figure as bound to that scope - never lift a number out of its context.
Reports answers 'can I package the output story into something I can share and return to?' It is where figures leave the screen and travel - which is exactly why the scope that produced them has to travel with them.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
Sales and CSMs use Reports to assemble a shareable view for a review or a handover. The customer question is 'what is the agreed set of figures we will look at over time?' A report is only trustworthy if the person reading it later knows the scope, period and filters that produced each number.
The task
Choose the scope, period and filters deliberately and make them visible in the output. Assemble the figures that answer one question rather than a grab-bag. Before sharing, confirm the definitions behind each figure match what the audience assumes. For a CSM, treat a report as the backbone of a recurring review and keep its scope stable across periods so trends are real and not an artefact of a changed filter.
How to read it
Every figure in a report is bound to the scope, period and filters that generated it. The classic misread is lifting a number out of a report and quoting it without that context - a team's output 'for the period, this work type, counted work only' becomes a naked number that invites a wrong conclusion. Read a report as a scoped snapshot, and when comparing two reports, check they share definitions and scope before trusting a difference between them.
Honest limits
A report proves only what its underlying screens prove - packaging does not add certainty, and a clean layout can make seeded or unvalidated figures look authoritative. Confirm with product which figures are export-ready and how definitions are fixed, and label any customer-facing report with its scope and the fact that figures depend on confirmed completion definitions and source coverage.
Interpretation check
Every figure in a report is bound to the scope, period and filters that produced it; never quote a number out of its report context, and a tidy report adds no certainty beyond what its source screens prove.
Practical task
Build a report scoped to one question, and write a one-line caption for it that states the scope, period and filters so no figure can be read out of context.
Self-check
Someone quotes '2,400 units' from a report with no other context. What is missing?
The scope, period, work type and whether it is counted work only - the figure is bound to all of them. Out of that context it invites a wrong conclusion.
Two monthly reports show different output. How do you check the trend is real?
Confirm both share the same scope, filters and definitions. A changed filter can create an apparent trend that is purely an artefact.
Does a polished report make its figures more reliable?
No - it only packages what the source screens prove. A clean layout can make seeded or unvalidated numbers look authoritative, so the underlying definitions still need confirming.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/reports; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.