# PMO data defect register — Whole Picture

**Reporting release:** CSKE Whole Picture v4.12.0  
**Prepared:** August 25, 2026  
**Purpose:** communicate reporting defects and contract gaps to PMO/Master Control without altering source data.  
**Closure rule:** an item remains open until the governed correction is accepted and fresh read-only report queries reproduce the PMO/Master Control examples.

**v4.12 review:** the platform expansion adds no source-value correction. It records five additional reporting-usability gaps—strategy lineage, complete asset/lifecycle identity, post-decision accountability, current authority, and privacy-safe place/resident experience—as WP-PMO-024 through WP-PMO-028. Existing items remain open unless PMO/Master Control supplies and accepts the governed correction.

This register distinguishes a confirmed defect from a suspected problem, missing normalization, and missing evidence. A reporting workaround does not close a source or contract defect.

**v4.11 review:** CNA release 0359 passed its accepted narrow reporting contract and does not create a confirmed source-value defect for that bounded use. Three downstream gaps are recorded below: the current-status/capital-plan bridge, the resident-readable property/BUC bridge, and authoritative asset/component identity. No prior PMO item is closed.

## Data-usability criticality scale

| Criticality | Meaning |
|---|---|
| **C1 — BLOCKING** | Highest. The affected data cannot be used for the stated reporting purpose until the defect is corrected or an accepted governed contract is supplied. |
| **C2 — RESTRICTED** | The data can be used only through a validated restriction or workaround. It cannot be generalized beyond that controlled use. |
| **C3 — QUALIFIED** | The data can be used with a visible limitation, but the issue can materially affect interpretation. |
| **C4 — MINOR** | The data remains usable and the defect has limited reporting impact. |

Criticality answers **whether we can use the affected data**. Priority answers **how urgently PMO should act**. They are recorded separately.

## Open items

### WP-PMO-001 — `source_loc_id` is not a unique longitudinal property key

- **Classification:** Confirmed reporting-relationship defect
- **Affected question:** How were assessment increases distributed among the same properties?
- **Database object:** `cske_gis.reporting_massgis_assessment_history_v1`
- **Evidence:** joining FY2022 to FY2026 on `source_loc_id` alone produced 75,270 rows from annual source populations of approximately 6,100 records. Matching on `source_prop_id + source_loc_id` produced 6,069 rows and eliminated the many-to-many inflation.
- **User impact:** an apparently plausible distribution can be materially false through duplicated matches.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for longitudinal parcel reporting
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** Longitudinal MassGIS data is usable only with the validated composite match and population reconciliation; `source_loc_id` alone is prohibited. A general longitudinal identity claim remains blocked.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted effective-dated parcel/property identity bridge or a reporting view with an explicit unique longitudinal match key and identity-change status.
- **Recommended owner:** GIS identity/data-model owner with Master Control acceptance
- **Current report handling:** corrected composite match isolated in the report query; rejected result is not displayed.
- **Retest required:** uniqueness by release; one-to-one FY2022/FY2026 match control; matched, unmatched, split, merge, and changed-identity counts; reconciliation to each annual population.
- **Status:** OPEN — report workaround validated; source contract not corrected

### WP-PMO-002 — No accepted resident-readable MassGIS use-code crosswalk

- **Classification:** Missing normalization
- **Affected question:** Which property categories experienced the largest increases?
- **Database object:** `source_use_code` in `cske_gis.reporting_massgis_assessment_history_v1`
- **Evidence:** source codes such as `1010`, `1021`, `1040`, `903Z`, and `130V` are preserved, but no accepted versioned dimension was identified that supplies public label, broader category, taxability role, effective period, and mapping authority.
- **User impact:** reporters may invent or inconsistently apply familiar labels, especially for mixed, exempt, special-purpose, or legacy codes.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** Exact principal codes may be used with source-code disclosure; comprehensive resident-readable property-category reporting is blocked pending the accepted crosswalk.
- **Required governed change:** add an effective-dated use-code dimension and accepted reporting crosswalk preserving raw code and mapping authority.
- **Recommended owner:** Assessor/GIS data steward with Master Control acceptance
- **Current report handling:** exact principal residential codes are labeled; broader categories are explicitly provisional.
- **Retest required:** every populated FY2022/FY2026 code maps once or is explicitly unresolved; category counts reconcile to 6,069 matched records.
- **Status:** OPEN

### WP-PMO-003 — Public-safe geographic distribution contract is missing

- **Classification:** Essential missing reporting contract
- **Affected question:** Which locations experienced the largest valuation and tax-share changes?
- **Database objects:** MassGIS assessment history and parcel geometry history
- **Evidence:** assessment records contain restricted owner/address information and geometry is governed separately. No accepted broad-area/neighborhood dimension, geometry bridge, minimum cell size, suppression rule, or benchmark example was identified.
- **User impact:** location analysis could expose identifiable households, use unstable address text, or present non-reconciling areas.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** MassGIS data may not be used to publish location comparisons until the geography, privacy, suppression, bridge, and reconciliation contract is accepted.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted privacy-safe geography view with stable area codes, effective dates, geometry/assessment match status, minimum-cell suppression, and town-total reconciliation.
- **Recommended owner:** GIS governance, privacy owner, and PMO/Master Control
- **Current report handling:** location result suppressed and labeled unavailable—not zero.
- **Retest required:** area totals plus suppressed/unmatched populations reconcile to the accepted town population; no personal fields appear in reporting output.
- **Status:** OPEN

### WP-PMO-004 — Several provisional property groups have an exact zero median change

- **Classification:** Suspected data or population-composition problem; not a confirmed defect
- **Affected question:** Did assessment changes differ by property category?
- **Database object:** MassGIS assessment history values and use codes
- **Evidence:** the FY2022/FY2026 matched analysis returns a zero median change for several small or heterogeneous groups, while principal residential categories have substantial positive medians.
- **User impact:** readers may interpret zero as no appraisal change when it could reflect exempt/special-property coding, repeated values, mixed populations, or source practices.
- **Severity / priority:** Medium / P2
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C3 — QUALIFIED.** The values may be shown only as provisional source-derived results with the zero-result limitation; they may not support a conclusion that those categories experienced no change.
- **Required investigation:** profile literal zeros, unchanged nonzero values, taxability, source code, property identity, and release behavior; confirm whether the results are legitimate source facts.
- **Recommended owner:** Assessor/GIS data steward
- **Current report handling:** values remain source-derived and qualified; missing values are never replaced with zero.
- **Retest required:** distribution of change values by accepted category, with literal-zero and unchanged-value counts reported separately.
- **Status:** OPEN — investigation required

### WP-PMO-005 — DLS `Single-Family Tax Bill` label is not unique across scope

- **Classification:** Confirmed semantic-selection hazard
- **Affected question:** How much did the average Wilbraham single-family tax bill increase?
- **Database object:** `cske.reporting_dor_affordability_observation_v1`
- **Evidence:** the label `Single-Family Tax Bill` occurs for both `MUNICIPALITY`/`TOWN_OF_WILBRAHAM` and `STATEWIDE_BENCHMARK`. A label-only query returns both values.
- **User impact:** a report can silently select or combine the statewide value instead of Wilbraham's value.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** The DLS series is usable only when entity, scope, and source-metric identity are required. Label-only selection is prohibited.
- **Required governed change:** provide stable semantic views or metric keys that make reporting entity and comparison scope mandatory and unambiguous.
- **Recommended owner:** DLS normalization owner with Master Control
- **Current report handling:** query requires municipality scope, Wilbraham entity, and the municipality source-metric identity.
- **Retest required:** exactly one accepted Wilbraham row and one separately identified statewide benchmark row per supported year.
- **Status:** OPEN — report selection controlled; semantic hazard remains

### WP-PMO-006 — MassGIS FY2019 assessment population appears duplicated

- **Classification:** Suspected source-release/load defect
- **Affected question:** What is the complete long-term parcel assessment history?
- **Database object:** `cske_gis.reporting_massgis_assessment_history_v1`
- **Evidence:** FY2019 contains 12,233 assessment rows, roughly twice the approximately 6,100 records in adjacent annual releases. This release does not use FY2019 in the matched FY2022/FY2026 calculation.
- **User impact:** an unqualified long-series analysis could double-count FY2019 and distort totals, averages, bands, or maps.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1 before using FY2019
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** FY2019 MassGIS assessment data may not be used in totals, trends, averages, bands, or maps until its population and release semantics reconcile. Other accepted years are unaffected.
- **Required investigation/change:** identify whether FY2019 contains two source vintages assigned to one assessment year, duplicate rows, or a legitimate expanded scope; publish accepted release-selection semantics.
- **Recommended owner:** MassGIS loader/data steward with Master Control
- **Current report handling:** FY2019 excluded from this story; issue retained for future full-history work.
- **Retest required:** release-level uniqueness, source-release counts, duplicate-key analysis, and reconciliation to the controlling FY2019 source.
- **Status:** OPEN — suspected, not confirmed

### WP-PMO-007 — Liquor-license counts and receipts are discovery evidence only

- **Classification:** Essential normalization/acceptance gap
- **Affected question:** What licenses and related receipts does Wilbraham's commercial activity produce over time?
- **Database/source area:** Annual Town Report releases 0451/0455 and future `cske_atr` reporting contract
- **Evidence:** preserved Annual Town Report text contains apparent annual-liquor-license counts, special-license counts, and liquor-license receipt rows, but PMO has designated release 0455 as source/page discovery only. No post-UAT-accepted normalized `cske_atr` license reporting view has been announced.
- **User impact:** using extracted page text could misassign a count, fiscal year, license class, budget column, receipt, waiver, or OCR artifact.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** Annual Town Report license counts and receipt amounts cannot be presented as normalized reporting data until Master Control accepts the view and examples.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted effective-dated `cske_atr` license activity/receipt view with license class, event/count basis, fiscal year, amount/basis, source locator, missingness, and UAT examples.
- **Recommended owner:** Annual Town Report normalization owner and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** discovery inventory only; no license trend is promoted as fact.
- **Retest required:** fresh query results must match Master Control examples; annual counts and receipts must reconcile to the accepted source pages, including COVID-era fee waivers or other qualifications.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked pending Master Control acceptance

### WP-PMO-008 — Capital 5 Yr Plan tab trims a source-significant trailing space

- **Classification:** Confirmed report-reproduction/selector defect; source data is present
- **Affected report/question:** `Capital 5 Yr Plan` reporting tab and every story depending on its reproduced cells
- **Database/source object:** captured sheet label `Capital 5 Yr Plan `, including its trailing space
- **Evidence:** the governed refresh contains 4,245 Capital-plan cells under `Capital 5 Yr Plan `, while the report requests the trimmed label `Capital 5 Yr Plan`. Exact matching therefore returns zero cells.
- **User impact:** the report falsely appears to have no Capital-plan data even though the refresh contains it.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The affected tab and dependent reporting cannot be used until the selector is corrected and its 4,245-cell population reconciles.
- **Required governed change:** preserve the exact source label for provenance while selecting through an accepted canonical sheet identity or controlled normalization rule; do not repair the symptom by altering or discarding the source label.
- **Recommended owner:** report reproduction owner, with Master Control acceptance of the canonical sheet-name contract
- **Current report handling:** affected tab must be labeled failed/unavailable; it must not be described as missing source data or as a loader failure.
- **Retest required:** fresh read-only query returns exactly 4,245 controlled cells; row/column coordinates, displayed totals, source label, canonical label, and Master Control examples reconcile.
- **Status:** OPEN — confirmed; report selector correction required

### WP-PMO-009 — Recreation tab trims a source-significant trailing space

- **Classification:** Confirmed report-reproduction/selector defect; source data is present
- **Affected report/question:** `Recreation` reporting tab and every story depending on its reproduced cells
- **Database/source object:** captured sheet label `Recreation `, including its trailing space
- **Evidence:** the governed refresh contains 1,163 Recreation cells under `Recreation `, while the report requests the trimmed label `Recreation`. Exact matching therefore returns zero cells.
- **User impact:** the report falsely appears to have no Recreation data even though the refresh contains it.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The affected tab and dependent reporting cannot be used until the selector is corrected and its 1,163-cell population reconciles.
- **Required governed change:** preserve the exact source label for provenance while selecting through an accepted canonical sheet identity or controlled normalization rule; do not repair the symptom by altering or discarding the source label.
- **Recommended owner:** report reproduction owner, with Master Control acceptance of the canonical sheet-name contract
- **Current report handling:** affected tab must be labeled failed/unavailable; it must not be described as missing source data or as a loader failure.
- **Retest required:** fresh read-only query returns exactly 1,163 controlled cells; row/column coordinates, displayed totals, source label, canonical label, and Master Control examples reconcile.
- **Status:** OPEN — confirmed; report selector correction required

### WP-PMO-010 — No accepted commercial-to-public-cost attribution contract

- **Classification:** Essential missing relationship and reporting contract
- **Affected question:** What is the commercial and industrial base's net recurring fiscal contribution?
- **Database/source area:** parcels, Town accounts, capital projects, roads/traffic, public safety, inspections, water/wastewater, debt, and grants
- **Evidence:** governed objects exist for several component domains, but no accepted bridge attributes direct costs to commercial properties/projects or allocates shared costs through controlled drivers.
- **User impact:** gross tax and receipt contribution could be misrepresented as net fiscal benefit.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for net-benefit claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The available data cannot support a net commercial-benefit or net commercial-cost conclusion.
- **Required governed change:** accepted effective-dated property/project/service/cost bridges plus allocation methods, direct-versus-allocated status, driver, period, scope, and reconciliation controls.
- **Recommended owner:** PMO/Master Control with finance, public safety, DPW, inspections, utilities, and GIS stewards
- **Current report handling:** gross contribution displayed; net cost and net benefit labeled not established.
- **Retest required:** direct costs reconcile to source accounts/projects; allocated costs reproduce accepted examples; allocated plus unallocated populations reconcile to controlled totals.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked

### WP-PMO-011 — No comprehensive incentives, abatements, and Town-support register

- **Classification:** Essential missing source/normalization
- **Affected question:** What Town support has been provided to commercial or industrial development?
- **Database/source area:** TIF or special-tax agreements, abatements, land transactions, infrastructure commitments, fee waivers, betterments, grants/matches, and development agreements
- **Evidence:** no accepted reporting view was identified that inventories these commitments, their beneficiaries/projects, amounts, timing, performance terms, expiration, and outcomes.
- **User impact:** commercial contribution can be overstated when waived, deferred, reimbursed, or Town-funded amounts are omitted.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for net-benefit claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** Absence of a reporting register prevents a complete net-benefit conclusion; it is not evidence that no support exists.
- **Required governed change:** accepted versioned commercial-support register with legal authority, approval, gross amount, concession/support amount, Town cash/infrastructure role, performance measures, source, period, and status.
- **Recommended owner:** PMO/Master Control with assessor, finance, planning, Select Board, and legal-record stewards
- **Current report handling:** support is reported as unknown, not zero.
- **Retest required:** accepted register reconciles to governing agreements, abatements, articles, accounts, projects, grants, and Master Control examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked

### WP-PMO-012 — Preserved Town spending history lacks an accepted refreshable reporting view

- **Classification:** Essential missing normalization and historical reporting contract
- **Affected question:** How much did Wilbraham's spending plan change, and which themes explain the change?
- **Database/source area:** FY2021–FY2025 Town budget history and future historical budget reporting view
- **Evidence:** the preserved report reconciles a $48,322,189 FY2021 plan, a $56,595,042 FY2025 plan, and an $8,272,853 net increase, including $3,940,529 categorized as Schools. No accepted live historical Town-budget view was identified that reproduces that bridge and its category mapping.
- **User impact:** the most relatable Town spending comparison cannot refresh automatically or be extended safely into the next budget cycle.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for refreshed historical Town-spending reporting
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** The preserved figures may remain visible only as dated, qualified evidence. They cannot be represented as freshly reproduced database results.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted annual Town-budget history view with fiscal year, stage, fund/scope, account, resident-readable theme, amount, source locator, mapping status, and reconciliation control.
- **Recommended owner:** Town budget normalization owner and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** preserved comparison retained and explicitly labeled pending source reconciliation; no invented refresh or extension.
- **Retest required:** FY2021 and FY2025 totals and every category movement reproduce the preserved bridge; category increases and decreases reconcile to the net change.
- **Status:** OPEN

### WP-PMO-013 — No accepted Town-wide “Run the Town / Change the Town” classification

- **Classification:** Essential missing semantic classification
- **Affected question:** Which costs continue existing services and commitments, and which choices add or change the Town?
- **Database/source area:** Town budget lifecycle, accounts, capital plan, debt, staffing, contracts, grants, and project records
- **Evidence:** HWRSD cost-driver records contain governed flexibility codes, but no accepted Town-wide classification assigns budget items to continuation, committed, expansion, project, or mixed status with effective dates and evidence.
- **User impact:** residents cannot see a trustworthy dollar split between the starting service burden and proposed discretionary change; ad hoc reporter classifications could mislead decisions.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for quantified controllability claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The conceptual decision frame may be explained, but no Town-wide dollar split may be published until the classification is accepted.
- **Required governed change:** effective-dated decision-classification dimension and account/project bridge with mixed-status rules, authority, rationale, confidence, and reconciliation to the voted budget.
- **Recommended owner:** Finance Committee/Town Finance semantic owner with PMO/Master Control acceptance
- **Current report handling:** framework explained; Town-wide amounts suppressed as unavailable, not zero.
- **Retest required:** every in-scope budget dollar maps once or is explicitly unresolved; classes reconcile to controlled fund totals and accepted examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked

### WP-PMO-014 — Enterprise-fund flows and General Fund relationships are not established

- **Classification:** Essential missing relationship and reconciliation contract
- **Affected question:** Do water, wastewater, and solid-waste charges fully fund their services, and do any balances support the General Fund?
- **Database/source area:** enterprise revenue, operating expense, indirect cost, debt, capital, retained earnings, transfers, interfund charges, and General Fund accounts
- **Evidence:** preserved point-in-time enterprise revenue and expense figures exist, but no accepted reporting view was identified that traces charges through direct costs, shared-cost allocations, debt/capital, retained balances, and transfers for a complete annual series.
- **User impact:** residents could mistake an operating surplus for overcharging, free General Fund revenue, or spendable cash without knowing debt, capital, restrictions, and interfund obligations.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for claims about overcharging or General Fund support
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The available evidence cannot support a conclusion that customers were overcharged or that enterprise balances subsidized the General Fund.
- **Required governed change:** accepted enterprise-fund annual statement and interfund-flow view with charge basis, direct/indirect expenses, transfers, debt/capital, restricted/unrestricted balance, source locator, and reconciliation to audited statements.
- **Recommended owner:** Town finance/utility stewards with auditor and Master Control acceptance
- **Current report handling:** questions preserved; conclusions suppressed and visibly labeled not established.
- **Retest required:** each enterprise reconciles beginning balance, revenue, expense, transfer, capital/debt use, and ending balance to audited controls and Master Control examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked

### WP-PMO-015 — Preserved Town-spending growth totals are not yet reconciled across predecessor reports

- **Classification:** Confirmed cross-report discrepancy; governing source/query unresolved
- **Affected question:** How much did Wilbraham's spending plan grow over the historical comparison period?
- **Database/source area:** preserved resident technical appendix, later FY2021–FY2025 Town-plan bridge, and future accepted historical Town-budget reporting view
- **Evidence:** the resident technical predecessor presents an additional `$10,005,151`, while the later published bridge reconciles `$48,322,189 + $8,272,853 = $56,595,042`. The two presentations may use different periods, scopes, stages, or classifications, but no accepted live view or crosswalk currently explains the difference.
- **User impact:** readers can reasonably interpret the two amounts as competing answers to the same question and may carry the wrong baseline into the next budget conversation.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for historical growth claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** The later `$8,272,853` bridge may be shown only with its explicit FY2021–FY2025 preserved basis. The `$10,005,151` predecessor total may not be substituted, combined, or described as the same comparison until the periods and components reconcile.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted historical Town-budget view and cross-report reconciliation identifying the entity, fund/scope, fiscal endpoints, budget stage, included accounts, classification rules, reclassifications, and exact bridge for each legacy amount.
- **Recommended owner:** Town budget normalization owner with Town Finance and Master Control acceptance
- **Current report handling:** the resident story uses the qualified `$8,272,853` bridge; the technical predecessor route keeps `$10,005,151` visible only as preserved historical evidence and calls out the unresolved difference.
- **Retest required:** both legacy totals reproduce from accepted queries or one is formally superseded; endpoint totals, category increases, offsets, reclassifications, and residual reconcile to Master Control examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — cross-report discrepancy confirmed; source-value defect not established

### WP-PMO-016 — Article 40 vote-threshold evidence conflicts

- **Classification:** Confirmed source-to-outcome legal-threshold discrepancy
- **Affected question:** What did residents authorize under Article 40, and was the required threshold met?
- **Database/source area:** `cske.atm_v_article_outcome`; signed warrant; certified May 11, 2026 minutes
- **Evidence:** the warrant records a two-thirds requirement for Article 40, while the certified minutes report that the motion passed by majority. The accepted view correctly exposes `OPEN_THRESHOLD_DISCREPANCY`.
- **User impact:** a report could wrongly assert that the legal threshold was satisfied or that the article was validly adopted based on an unresolved comparison.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for any legal-threshold or validity conclusion
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The reported outcome may be shown with the conflict, but the affected evidence cannot support a conclusion that the required legal threshold was met.
- **Required governed change:** obtain an official clarification, certification, or numerical tally and publish the corrected threshold/outcome contract without rewriting the source record.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Clerk/legal authority with ATM data steward and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** outcome retained; threshold conclusion suppressed and limitation displayed.
- **Retest required:** accepted correction reconciles warrant requirement, certified outcome/basis, source pages, and Master Control example.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked for threshold conclusion

### WP-PMO-017 — The temporary $23,000 Article 19 difference has no identified line

- **Classification:** Confirmed unexplained stage-reconciliation difference; source value defect not established
- **Affected question:** What changed between the April FY2027 budget schedule, May 6 anticipated motion, and final vote?
- **Database/source area:** `cske.atm_v_appropriation_stage_comparison`; April proposed appropriations; May 6 anticipated motions; final-voted lineage
- **Evidence:** the April and final totals are $57,018,471; the May 6 anticipated Article 19 motion is $57,041,471. No accepted source allocates the temporary $23,000 difference to a budget line.
- **User impact:** a reporter could invent a department or purpose for the change, or silently erase a useful process question.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for line-level attribution; High / P1 for process explanation
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING** for identifying the changed line; final and intermediate totals remain usable as separate, qualified source facts.
- **Required governed change:** obtain the revised worksheet or official explanation and connect the $23,000 movement to an accepted line-level source.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Finance/Town Clerk with ATM data steward and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** all three totals displayed; affected line labeled unknown and never inferred.
- **Retest required:** stage totals and the exact line bridge reproduce the accepted explanation and reconcile to zero residual.
- **Status:** OPEN — line attribution blocked

### WP-PMO-018 — Voted budget lines do not connect to current accounts and actual spending

- **Classification:** Essential missing relationship, normalization, and post-vote reporting contract
- **Affected question:** What happened after residents authorized the FY2027 plan—what was changed, committed, spent, left unused, and delivered?
- **Database/source area:** ATM budget lines; `cske.map_atm_budget_line_town_account_readiness_v`; later amendments/transfers; accounting actuals; service results
- **Evidence:** the accepted ATM schedule omits authoritative department/account numbers; 294 budget lines have zero direct or normalized Town-account mappings. The accepted evidence ends May 11, 2026 and contains no complete post-vote implementation bridge.
- **User impact:** authority can be mistaken for actual spending, and residents cannot trace a voted line to later accounts, changes, results, or remaining authority.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** ATM data cannot be used to report actual spending, budget-to-actual variance, unused authority, or service results until the relationship and later sources are accepted.
- **Required governed change:** publish an effective-dated many-to-many ATM-line-to-account map plus accepted amendment, transfer, encumbrance, actual, balance, and service-result reporting contracts.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Finance/accounting with ATM data steward and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** final-voted authority is labeled clearly; actual/remaining/result claims are suppressed and posed as next questions.
- **Retest required:** every material line maps or is explicitly unresolved; authorized, amended, committed, actual, and remaining amounts reconcile to accepted examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — blocked

### WP-PMO-019 — Exhibits B through G and property details are incomplete

- **Classification:** Confirmed essential missing source evidence for affected property and bylaw detail
- **Affected question:** What exactly did the property, easement, General Code, and Zoning Code articles authorize?
- **Database/source area:** ATM exhibits B–G; property plans/deeds; Articles 33–40
- **Evidence:** Exhibit A is reproduced and normalized; only index entries and warrant summaries were supplied for Exhibits B through G. Registry references, grantors, easement geometry, parcel links, and full code text therefore cannot be normalized.
- **User impact:** an outcome list can be reported, but the substantive legal/property effect could be incomplete or misstated.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for full legal/property-detail reporting
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING** for the missing exhibit contents and derived property/legal detail; high-level article titles and certified outcomes remain usable with qualification.
- **Required governed change:** acquire, control, and normalize Exhibits B–G and the governing property-plan/deed details with official source provenance.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Clerk/planning/legal/property record stewards with ATM data steward and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** outcome list retained; absent exhibit content and derived detail suppressed.
- **Retest required:** exhibit inventory is complete; source pages and normalized facts reconcile to the official record and Master Control examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — affected detail blocked

### WP-PMO-020 — Numerical public vote tallies were not reported

- **Classification:** Missing helpful evidence; not a defect in the certified reported outcome
- **Affected question:** How many people voted yes, no, or abstained on each 2026 article?
- **Database/source area:** `cske.atm_v_article_outcome`; certified minutes
- **Evidence:** all 43 articles have reported outcomes, but all 43 have unreported numerical vote tallies. The record supplies bases such as unanimous, majority, or two-thirds majority rather than yes/no/abstain counts.
- **User impact:** readers can know the certified result but cannot measure the numerical margin, participation by article, or abstentions.
- **Severity / priority:** Medium / P2
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C3 — QUALIFIED.** Reported outcomes are usable; numerical margin analysis is unavailable and may not be inferred.
- **Required governed change:** if an official count or certification exists, acquire and normalize it; otherwise preserve the explicit unreported state.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Clerk with ATM data steward and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** outcomes and bases displayed; missing tallies explicitly labeled missing, never zero.
- **Retest required:** every article retains either official counts with provenance or the explicit unreported state.
- **Status:** OPEN — helpful evidence missing

### WP-PMO-021 — CNA projections do not connect to current capital status, cost, or funding

- **Classification:** Essential missing relationship and normalization contract
- **Affected question:** Which 2021 projected needs remain open today, what do they cost now, and how do they fit the current capital and affordability path?
- **Database/source area:** `cske.capital_cna2021_schedule_reportable_default_v1`; CNA recommendation/schedule codes; current capital plans, projects, accounts, appropriations, contracts, actual/completion records, grants, debt, and operating impacts
- **Evidence:** the accepted narrow contract supports 297 historic numeric projections representing 118 recommendations, but it deliberately does not establish completed, funded, replaced, rescoped, deferred, retired, or still-open status. Its amount semantics prohibit current-need, approval, spending, completion, and in-service inferences.
- **User impact:** old projections could be double counted beside current plans, revived after completion, or mistaken for current scope and price.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** CNA 2021 is usable for the bounded historical-projection story only. It cannot support a current capital-needs total, current project list, or combined affordability total without this bridge.
- **Required governed change:** publish an effective-dated recommendation/schedule-to-current-project/account relationship with status, source date, current scope/cost, funding, debt, operating effect, owner, timing, match method, overlap, and reconciliation controls.
- **Recommended owner:** capital/facilities owners, Town Finance, Town Administration, and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** 297-row historical series displayed and qualified; every current-status and current-total inference suppressed.
- **Retest required:** every in-scope recommendation maps to one or more current records or an explicit unresolved/retired state; populations and amounts reconcile without duplicate counting to accepted examples.
- **Status:** OPEN — current capital conclusion blocked

### WP-PMO-022 — CNA safe contract lacks a resident-readable property and BUC bridge

- **Classification:** Essential missing semantic/reporting relationship
- **Affected question:** What did the 2021 study project specifically for the BUC and each resident-recognizable municipal property?
- **Database/source area:** CNA 0359 safe default view, controlled property codes, BUC portfolio/scenario evidence, and future property dimension
- **Evidence:** the accepted safe query exposes controlled property codes but no accepted resident-readable property-name or BUC-membership mapping within its reporting boundary. The loader retains BUC-related links elsewhere, but the safe contract does not authorize querying around the exclusion.
- **User impact:** a reporter could mislabel a property, omit a building, or calculate a BUC total outside the accepted contract.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for property-specific and BUC-only claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** Portfolio and year totals are usable; BUC-only and resident-readable property totals are not.
- **Required governed change:** publish an accepted effective-dated property display dimension and BUC-membership bridge inside the reporting contract, with stable keys, scope dates, aliases, inclusion rules, and examples.
- **Recommended owner:** facilities/property-data owner, BUC program owner, CNA loader owner, and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** no BUC-only CNA total and no inferred property names; the gap is stated beside the BUC and capital stories.
- **Retest required:** property rows reconcile to the 297 eligible-row portfolio; every code maps once or remains explicitly unresolved; accepted BUC examples reproduce exactly.
- **Status:** OPEN — property/BUC reporting blocked

### WP-PMO-023 — Possible CNA equipment/component references are not authoritative assets

- **Classification:** Helpful missing asset-identity relationship
- **Affected question:** Which durable asset or component does each capital recommendation affect?
- **Database/source area:** three possible CNA equipment/component references and separate ASSET-001 work
- **Evidence:** the accepted CNA contract identifies three references as evidence only and explicitly prohibits authoritative asset inference.
- **User impact:** a component could be given the wrong identity or incorrectly connected to maintenance, replacement, completion, or lifecycle history.
- **Severity / priority:** Medium / P2
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C3 — QUALIFIED.** The narrow projection story remains usable because it does not publish authoritative component identities; asset-level reporting remains unavailable.
- **Required governed change:** complete the authoritative asset/component identity and effective-dated relationship contract with source provenance and match status.
- **Recommended owner:** asset-data owner with facilities stewards and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** possible component identities are neither displayed nor inferred.
- **Retest required:** each accepted relationship reproduces the ASSET-001 examples and keeps unmatched or ambiguous evidence explicit.
- **Status:** OPEN — helpful asset relationship pending

### WP-PMO-024 — No accepted strategy-to-budget-to-result relationship contract

- **Classification:** Essential missing normalization and governance contract
- **Affected question:** How does Wilbraham's stated purpose reach objectives, measures, master plans, work, budgets, and demonstrated results?
- **Database/source area:** working Balanced Scorecard; master plans; portfolio/program/project records; budget accounts; result measures; future accepted strategy lineage
- **Evidence:** the reviewed materials contain a useful direction-and-measure design, but no accepted effective-dated contract joins adopted and working strategy statements to plan commitments, accountable work, resources, measures, targets, actual results, and corrections.
- **User impact:** readers can see the intended chain but cannot yet trace or reconcile a Town objective to every dollar, project, result, and owner through fresh governed queries.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for quantified or adopted strategy-to-budget/result claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** The working framework may be explained, but it cannot support complete, official, or quantified strategy-lineage claims.
- **Required governed change:** publish versioned purpose, outcome, objective, measure, plan-commitment, work, account, result, owner, adoption-status, effective-date, and reconciliation objects with accepted examples.
- **Recommended owner:** Town strategy/governance owners, Town Finance, PMO, service owners, and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** conceptual lineage shown; maturity and adoption limits visible; unaccepted joins and totals suppressed.
- **Retest required:** every promoted lineage reproduces an accepted example, resolves many-to-many relationships, states effective dates and authority, and reconciles resources and measures.
- **Status:** OPEN — quantified and official lineage blocked

### WP-PMO-025 — A complete authoritative asset inventory and lifecycle bridge is missing

- **Classification:** Essential missing asset normalization and relationship contract
- **Affected question:** What has been entrusted to Wilbraham, what condition is it in, and what work, cost, risk, and result belongs to it?
- **Database/source area:** candidate physical/capital asset register; software/data asset register; Memorial pilot; CNA evidence; parcels, buildings, components, services, projects, accounts, work, and lifecycle records
- **Evidence:** candidate registers and pilots establish a strong pattern, while current authoritative identity, ownership, use, condition, lifecycle status, component hierarchy, project overlap, funding, operating cost, and disposition are not complete or reconciled.
- **User impact:** capital requests and recommendations cannot yet be tested against one complete current portfolio, and old or overlapping work can be mistaken for a new current need.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for complete asset, current-condition, current-need, or lifecycle-cost claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** Candidate and historical evidence may be used within their labels; a complete current asset inventory or total is unavailable.
- **Required governed change:** publish canonical effective-dated asset and component identities with source provenance, ownership/stewardship, service relationships, condition, lifecycle, work/project/account/funding bridges, status, exceptions, and reconciliation.
- **Recommended owner:** facilities, land/property, infrastructure, equipment, IT/data, service, finance, PMO, and Master Control owners
- **Current report handling:** the asset chain and gaps are shown; completeness, current status, and current totals are not inferred.
- **Retest required:** accepted inventory populations reconcile by asset class; every relationship is unique or explicitly many-to-many/unresolved; current examples match Master Control.
- **Status:** OPEN — complete current asset reporting blocked

### WP-PMO-026 — Decisions do not yet connect to implementation, actual results, and lessons

- **Classification:** Essential missing post-decision accountability and institutional-memory contract
- **Affected question:** After a choice is authorized, what was delivered, what did it cost, what changed, and what should the next decision learn?
- **Database/source area:** authorizations; amendments; contracts; projects/work; accounting actuals; assets/services; outcome measures; resident experience; reviews; corrective actions; follow-up
- **Evidence:** accepted ATM evidence reaches authorization and working portfolio materials identify follow-up needs, but no accepted end-to-end contract links a decision to implementation, actuals, outputs, outcomes, resident experience, review, correction, and durable lessons.
- **User impact:** reporting can stop at the vote or budget and leave residents unable to see whether the promised result occurred or whether unresolved work returned to the next decision.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for delivery, performance, outcome, or lesson claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** Authorization and working follow-up may be reported separately; end-to-end performance conclusions are blocked.
- **Required governed change:** publish versioned decision, condition, commitment, implementation, actual, output, outcome, review, correction, follow-up, and lesson relationships with responsible owners and effective dates.
- **Recommended owner:** decision-record owners, delivery/service/asset owners, Town Finance, PMO, oversight bodies, and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** authorization remains distinct from delivery; the missing loop is explicitly identified as follow-up.
- **Retest required:** accepted examples trace from decision through actual/result/review with reconciled dollars, status, measures, corrections, and unresolved exceptions.
- **Status:** OPEN — end-to-end accountability blocked

### WP-PMO-027 — Current decision authority cannot be inferred from the older roles workbook

- **Classification:** Confirmed currency and authority hazard; controlling-source contract missing
- **Affected question:** Who may recommend, authorize, deliver, oversee, measure, report, or correct each type of Town decision today?
- **Database/source area:** older Town Roles workbook; charter, bylaws, statutes, appointments, delegations, contracts, policies, and current capacity records
- **Evidence:** the reviewed workbook is necessary working guidance, but its date and structure do not establish current controlling authority, appointment, delegation, or operating capacity for a specific decision.
- **User impact:** a useful general role description could be mistaken for legal or current decision authority.
- **Severity / priority:** Critical / P0 for authority claims
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C1 — BLOCKING.** General role questions may be explained; current authority must be confirmed from controlling records.
- **Required governed change:** publish an effective-dated decision-rights register tied to controlling sources, decision types, bodies/roles, delegations, vacancies/capacity, and supersession history.
- **Recommended owner:** Town Clerk, legal/governance owners, appointing authorities, role owners, and Master Control
- **Current report handling:** roles are presented as questions and functions; the page requires controlling-source confirmation.
- **Retest required:** every current authority claim resolves to an effective controlling source and accepted example; superseded and unresolved states remain visible.
- **Status:** OPEN — current authority claims blocked

### WP-PMO-028 — No accepted privacy-safe place and resident-experience reporting contract

- **Classification:** Missing helpful-to-essential geography, experience, and privacy contract
- **Affected question:** Who experiences a service or development choice, where, and what place or identity effects might be difficult to reverse?
- **Database/source area:** resident experience, service access/use, broad-area geography, traffic, business and traveler effects, place/identity observations, historic resources, engagement evidence, and privacy/suppression rules
- **Evidence:** Understanding Together supplies a strong question framework and current property evidence supports limited aggregate comparisons, but no accepted townwide contract governs place areas, minimum cells, resident-experience measures, identity observations, and evidence strength.
- **User impact:** average or townwide measures can make concentrated effects invisible; overly granular reporting could create privacy or identification risk.
- **Severity / priority:** High / P1 generally; Critical / P0 where a decision may create concentrated or irreversible effects
- **Data-usability criticality:** **C2 — RESTRICTED.** Townwide and accepted aggregate evidence may be used; unsupported place-specific, resident-experience, or privacy-sensitive conclusions are prohibited.
- **Required governed change:** publish privacy-safe broad-area dimensions, minimum-cell/suppression controls, accepted experience/place measures, source-strength labels, affected-group rules, and townwide reconciliation.
- **Recommended owner:** GIS/privacy, planning, historic/place, service, engagement, PMO, and Master Control owners
- **Current report handling:** the reporting asks who experiences the change, identifies Center imagery as origin evidence only, and does not generalize one place or one person's view to all Wilbraham.
- **Retest required:** accepted place and experience examples reproduce, suppressed/unmatched populations reconcile, and no personal or small-cell inference is possible.
- **Status:** OPEN — place-specific conclusions restricted

## Reporting-only limitations that are not source defects

- The matched FY2022/FY2026 analysis measures assessment changes, not certified parcel tax-bill changes.
- DLS average single-family values and bills are averages, not medians or household-level distributions.
- Market appraisal increases do not themselves constitute Proposition 2½ new growth or create ordinary levy authority.
- The current report cannot attribute the $7.92 million levy increase to a complete set of spending drivers.

## PMO response fields

For each item, PMO should return: accepted owner; confirmed classification; governed correction/view; release identifier; UAT evidence; example query and expected result; effective date; superseded contract, if any; and adoption authorization for reporting.