Work Understanding: Reports
Objective. Produce a Work Understanding report at a defined scope and period, and carry the scope, confidence and modelled-vs-measured caveats with the figures so an exported number is not misread downstream.
Reports export the app's findings into a shareable, point-in-time artifact. They answer 'can we take these findings into a review or a system of record?' - as long as the scope and caveats travel with the numbers.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
The customer question is: can we get these process findings out of the tool and into a meeting, a QBR, or another system - with the evidence intact? Sales people show reports to prove the output is portable; CSMs build them as the artifact a customer review is run from.
The value is a defensible, dated record. The risk unique to reports is that a figure, once exported, loses the context that made it correct - so the job is to make sure scope, period and the modelled-versus-measured status travel with the number.
The task
- Open the reports screen from the overview.
- Set the scope and period explicitly before generating - the report inherits whatever filter it is built from.
- Choose the content for the audience: a leader wants trend and magnitude, an owner wants the specific finding and evidence.
- Before sharing, confirm the figures are labelled as modelled opportunity or measured released time, and that the scope is stated on the artifact itself.
Describe report content by purpose, not invented export-format names or precise figures.
How to read it
A report is a point-in-time snapshot at a fixed scope - read the date and the filter first. The classic misread is a downstream reader treating an exported opportunity figure as a committed saving, because the caveat stayed behind in the tool. The number is only as good as the scope printed next to it.
Two figures must never be confused in a report: modelled opportunity (a hypothesis) and measured released time (a result). If a report shows both, they must be clearly separated, and overlapping findings must not be summed into a single headline.
Honest limits
This screen does not validate anything it exports; it packages the current findings with their existing limits and freezes them at a date. A report can look authoritative while resting on partial coverage or low-confidence findings.
Confirm with product what report formats, scheduling and definitions a customer has, and whether a figure reflects validated or modelled work. Treat the report as evidence to be read in context, not a certificate - and make the context impossible to lose by printing it on the artifact.
Interpretation check
An exported figure must carry its scope, period and modelled-vs-measured status, or it will be misread downstream as a committed number. A report freezes findings with their existing limits; it does not validate them.
In the field
A days-in-AR improvement report for an RCM sponsor should state the claim type, period and that the figure is measured released time from a before/after - so finance reads a result, not a projection.
Practical task
On the demo reports screen, define a scope and period for one process, outline the report you would build for a QBR, and write the one-line scope-and-caveat footer you would put on it so no figure is misread after it leaves the tool.
Self-check
Why is an exported opportunity figure especially easy to misread?
Once out of the tool, it loses the context that made it correct. A downstream reader can treat a modelled opportunity as a committed saving unless the scope and modelled-vs-measured label travel on the artifact.
What two numbers must a report keep clearly separate?
Modelled opportunity (a hypothesis) and measured released time (a result). Blending them, or summing overlapping findings into one headline, produces an indefensible figure.
What must you check before sharing a report?
The scope and period are stated on the artifact, figures are labelled modelled or measured, and the content matches the audience. The caveats must be on the page, not left in the tool.
Does exporting a finding make it more validated?
No. A report freezes the current findings with their existing coverage and confidence limits at a date. It packages, it does not prove.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/reports; exact report formats, scheduling and figures are SME-validation-pending, and a customer's available reports and definitions must be confirmed with product.