# Whole Picture reporting-data assessment ## v4.11 CNA 2021 narrow-projection adoption assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** What did the 2021 building study project, and what does that mean today? **Database object or source:** `cske.capital_cna2021_schedule_reportable_default_v1`; CNA 0359 accepted contract. **Evidence:** the narrow query is internally controlled and no source-value defect was confirmed for its accepted reporting purpose, but every eligible amount carries the semantics `PROJECTED_SOURCE_ESTIMATE_NOT_ACTUAL_APPROVED_APPROPRIATED_CONTRACTED_EXPENDED_COMPLETED_OR_IN_SERVICE`. **Finding state:** confirmed interpretation hazard, not a confirmed source-data defect. **User impact:** a 2021 estimate could be mistaken for a current need, price, budget, approval, spending record, or completed project. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for any current-need, current-plan, or current-cost conclusion. **Recommended owner or next action:** Whole Picture must preserve the projection label; capital owners and Master Control should supply a current-status bridge before broader use. **Current handling:** the bounded historical series is displayed; all current-status conclusions are suppressed and posed as next questions. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** What happened to each projected need, and how does it connect to today’s plan? **Database object or missing source:** CNA recommendation/schedule codes mapped to current capital-plan items, projects, accounts, funding, debt, status, owner, and timing. **Evidence:** 118 recommendations are represented in the accepted 297-row series, but the safe contract does not establish whether each item was completed, funded, replaced, rescoped, deferred, retired, or remains open. **User impact:** old projections cannot be reconciled to the current portfolio, and aggregating them beside today’s capital or debt would double count or revive finished work. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for a current capital-needs total or combined affordability path. **Recommended owner or next action:** capital/program owners, Town Finance, facilities, and Master Control should publish an effective-dated many-to-many status and reconciliation bridge. **Current handling:** historical projection totals and years are qualified; no current portfolio total is calculated. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** Which 2021 building needs are still open, what do they cost now, and what would they require from households? **Missing source:** current condition assessments, current scope/cost estimates, approved capital plan, appropriations, contracts, actual/completed work, grants, debt, operating effects, service consequences, and an accepted resident-readable property-name/BUC mapping. **Evidence:** the CNA contract deliberately supplies none of these current facts and does not expose a safe resident-readable BUC/property bridge. **User impact:** the report cannot answer whether a particular property or BUC choice needs action today or place a current amount on the household path. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** facilities/capital owners, Town Administration, Finance, and Master Control should publish current authoritative sources and mappings with accepted examples. **Current handling:** BUC-only and current-need totals are suppressed; the gap is explicit. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** Which equipment or building component did a recommendation concern? **Helpful source:** authoritative asset/component identities and the governed ASSET-001 relationship. **Evidence:** three possible equipment/component references are preserved only as evidence and may not be treated as authoritative assets. **User impact:** readers cannot yet follow a projection into a durable component history or lifecycle record. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** asset-data owner and Master Control should complete the separate asset identity work and publish a controlled relationship when ready. **Current handling:** possible component identities are not displayed or inferred. ## v4.10 reader-path and resident-comparison assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** “What changed for the Town—and for a typical home?” **Database object or source:** no source-data defect established; prior report presentation combined a preserved FY2021–FY2025 spending-plan comparison with a FY2021–FY2026 levy headline without a common visual period or scale. **Evidence:** the accepted DLS levy is $40,826,190.82 in FY2021, $47,337,113.35 in FY2025, and $48,746,259.34 in FY2026; the preserved spending-plan comparison stops at FY2025. **Finding state:** confirmed reporting-presentation defect, not a confirmed database defect. **User impact:** readers could try to compare bar lengths that did not represent a shared baseline and could confuse the budget with the levy. **Severity / priority:** C2 serious / P1. **Recommended owner or next action:** Whole Picture reporter; maintain a shared period/scale and explicit measure relationship. **Current handling:** corrected; the bars now use FY2021–FY2025 and $0–$60 million, while the FY2026 headline remains separately labeled. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** What other income pays the difference between the Town spending plan and the property-tax levy? **Database object or missing source:** an accepted, same-scope, same-stage, same-fiscal-year funding bridge across General Fund and other included funds. **Evidence:** the current reporting has an approved spending-plan comparison and DLS levy series but not a reconciled bridge proving which revenues and fund sources explain the displayed difference. **User impact:** subtracting the two bars and labeling the remainder “other revenue” would be unsupported. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for a complete funding decomposition. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance/data steward and Master Control should publish a normalized budget-authority-to-funding-source bridge with fiscal year, fund, stage, restriction, and elimination controls. **Current handling:** the report explains the relationship but suppresses the unsupported remainder calculation. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** What will the seven next choices require together, and what could the combined path add to household bills? **Missing source:** one accepted forward portfolio connecting HWRSD, Middle School, BUC/buildings, capital, debt, continuing operating costs, dependable income, timing, alternatives, and household illustrations. **Evidence:** current accepted objects support pieces but not one reconciled decision timeline. **User impact:** choices can still arrive in isolated meetings and appear affordable one at a time. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for a combined affordability conclusion. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Administration, Finance, HWRSD, capital/building owners, and Master Control should publish compatible scenario contracts and a governed combined view. **Current handling:** the report names all seven decisions but does not rank or total them. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** Where am I in the reporting packet? **Helpful source:** governed route metadata for report level, parent category, related questions, and preservation successor/predecessor relationships. **Evidence:** v4.10 implements the hierarchy in the application catalog and shell, but it is not yet a governed database contract. **User impact:** future reporting packages could drift if each interface recreates the hierarchy independently. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** Reporting Framework owner should standardize the route taxonomy when the next shared reporting contract is designed. **Current handling:** all current routes use one application-level category and depth contract. ## v4.9.0 Annual Town Meeting adoption assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** What did residents authorize under Article 40, and was the required vote threshold met? **Database object or source:** `cske.atm_v_article_outcome`, signed warrant, and certified minutes. **Evidence:** the warrant states a two-thirds requirement while the certified minutes report passage by majority; the accepted view marks `OPEN_THRESHOLD_DISCREPANCY`. **Finding state:** confirmed source-to-outcome discrepancy; the legal result is not determined by this report. **User impact:** a reader could mistake a certified reported outcome for proof that the required legal threshold was satisfied. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for threshold or validity conclusions. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Clerk/legal authority with the ATM data steward and Master Control should obtain and publish an official clarification, certification, or tally. **Current handling:** the article outcome may be shown, but the threshold conclusion is suppressed and the conflict is visible. - **Affected report/question:** What changed between the April schedule, May 6 anticipated Article 19 motion, and final vote? **Database object or source:** `cske.atm_v_appropriation_stage_comparison`. **Evidence:** April and final are $57,018,471 while the May 6 anticipated motion is $57,041,471; no accepted source identifies the $23,000 line. **Finding state:** confirmed stage discrepancy; source-value defect not established. **User impact:** assigning a department or purpose would be invented. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for line attribution; the totals remain usable separately with qualification. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance/Town Clerk and the ATM data steward should obtain the revised worksheet or official explanation. **Current handling:** all totals remain visible; the affected line is explicitly unknown. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** How did each voted budget line become an account, later change, commitment, payment, and service result? **Database object or source:** `cske.map_atm_budget_line_town_account_readiness_v`, ATM budget lines, Town accounting, and post-vote decision records. **Evidence:** the schedule omits authoritative account numbers and all 294 budget lines lack a direct or normalized Town-account mapping. **User impact:** residents cannot follow authority into actual spending at the same grain, and reporters could join on labels incorrectly. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for budget-to-actual, remaining-authority, and service-result claims. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance/accounting with the ATM data steward and Master Control should publish an effective-dated many-to-many line/account bridge plus stage, amendment, transfer, and actual controls. **Current handling:** final-voted authority is kept separate from actuals; post-vote calculations are suppressed. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** What happened after May 11—what was amended, transferred, contracted, encumbered, spent, left unused, and delivered? **Missing source:** accepted post-vote implementation records connected to the ATM article and budget-line grain. **Evidence:** migration 0100 ends with the May 11 certified outcome and expressly does not contain later implementation or accounting activity. **User impact:** the vote can become a false endpoint rather than the start of accountability. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance, Town Clerk, procurement/project/service owners, and Master Control should publish accepted later-action and actuals bridges. **Current handling:** the report asks these as next questions and does not represent missing activity or balances as zero. - **Affected report/question:** What exactly did the affected property, easement, General Code, and Zoning Code articles authorize? **Missing source:** Exhibits B through G and complete property-plan/deed evidence. **Evidence:** only index entries and warrant summaries were supplied; full registry, grantor, easement, parcel, and code details are absent. **User impact:** the outcome is knowable but the legal/property substance can be incomplete. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for full detail. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Clerk, planning/legal/property stewards, ATM data steward, and Master Control should acquire and normalize the official exhibits. **Current handling:** high-level article titles/outcomes remain; missing exhibit-derived details are suppressed. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** How decisive or close was each Town Meeting vote? **Helpful source:** official yes/no/abstain counts or a certification that no numerical tallies exist. **Evidence:** all 43 articles have reported outcomes, while all 43 numerical tallies are unreported. **User impact:** the report can show what passed or failed but cannot show margin, article-level participation, or abstentions. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Clerk and ATM data steward should add official counts if they exist; otherwise preserve the unreported state. **Current handling:** outcomes and reported bases are displayed; missing counts are never replaced with zero. - **Affected report/question:** Which later article comparison would help residents prepare for the next budget cycle? **Helpful source:** the same accepted ATM contract for subsequent meetings, linked to effective-dated article/topic and budget-line identities. **Evidence:** 2026 supplies one strong decision path but not yet a multi-meeting trend. **User impact:** readers cannot yet compare recurring authorizations, amendments, and outcomes year over year through the same definitions. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** ATM data steward and Master Control should extend the accepted contract prospectively without overwriting 2026. **Current handling:** the report treats 2026 as a dated starting point, not a trend. ## v4.8.2 household-language reporting assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** What can Wilbraham and its households comfortably afford after current services and promises are paid? **Database object or source:** no new object; the unresolved FY2027 funding picture, current-service forecast, and combined capital/debt/household scenario documented in WP-PMO-012 through WP-PMO-015 still govern. **Evidence:** this release changes the public explanation from internal terms such as “capacity,” “baseline,” and “funding bridge” to household concepts, but a clearer question does not supply the missing inputs. **Finding state:** confirmed reporting-meaning risk, not a confirmed numeric source defect. **User impact:** earlier language could make legal permission sound like financial comfort or leave a resident unable to understand why the missing data matters. **Severity / priority:** C2 restricted / P0 for any affordability conclusion. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance, HWRSD, capital/debt owners, assessor/collector, and Master Control should provide the accepted multi-year inputs already identified in the defect register. **Current handling:** the report states that affordability is not yet calculable and uses the credit-card analogy to distinguish permission from comfort; no amount is certified as available. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** Which Town income returns every year, is restricted to one purpose, will arrive only once, or carries a cost to generate? **Database object or source:** accepted resident-readable revenue classification across property tax, state aid, local receipts, fees, enterprises, transfers, reserves, grants, and one-time sources. **Evidence:** source-specific records exist, but the current report cannot apply one effective-dated classification and reconcile it to the same year’s spending plan. **User impact:** residents cannot yet see the Town equivalent of salary, restricted savings, and one-time income in one dependable picture. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0 for a calculated remaining-income result. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance and Master Control should publish a reconciled revenue-source dimension and FY2027 source-to-use view with recurrence, restriction, volatility, gross/net cost, and permitted-use fields. **Current handling:** the report explains the categories conceptually and asks the question; it does not invent classifications or totals. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** After dependable income pays the bills and promises already carried, what could the next budget add to household tax bills? **Missing source:** accepted three-to-five-year current-service forecast combined with approved and proposed debt/capital schedules, realistic annual income, prudent savings/repair needs, service effects, and household distribution scenarios. **Evidence:** the release can freshly query selected current budget, levy, property, school, and debt facts but cannot place the full forward plan on the same years and assumptions. **User impact:** the central household question remains unanswered even though its meaning is now clearer. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** the existing owners in WP-PMO-012 through WP-PMO-015 should publish the accepted contracts and Master Control examples. **Current handling:** the report shows the required household-style calculation sequence and labels the result unavailable rather than zero. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** Can residents move from familiar household language to exact municipal terms without losing the meaning? **Helpful source:** a versioned resident-readable financial term and metric dictionary tied to accepted view fields and examples. **Evidence:** v4.8.2 supplies the translation in prose, while the same concepts recur across many reports and future data sources. **User impact:** a shared dictionary would reduce repeated explanation and help residents, new hires, specialists, and leaders use the same words consistently. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** PMO/Master Control and reporting owners should accept a small glossary mapping everyday concept, municipal term, calculation, source field, limitations, and examples. **Current handling:** the current resident and affordability paths provide the translation directly; the lack of a normalized dictionary does not block those qualified explanations. ## v4.8.1 Safari-compatible delivery assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** Can the most recent validated report be opened in Safari? **Database object or source:** none; this was a confirmed local delivery defect in the v4.8.0 launcher. **Evidence:** Safari HTTPS-Only rejected `http://127.0.0.1:8048/index.html` before the page loaded, even after the read-only refresh passed. **Finding state:** confirmed reporting-runtime defect, not a source-data defect. **User impact:** the current report was unusable from the normal launcher. **Severity / priority:** application-blocking / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** Whole Picture reporting owner; replace loopback HTTP delivery with a controlled direct-file snapshot. **Current handling:** corrected in v4.8.1; the launcher opens local `index.html` only after the validated snapshot is built. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** Does direct-file delivery change the governing data contract? **Database object or source:** none newly identified. **Evidence:** the direct-file JavaScript artifact is mechanically generated from the same validated JSON and status files and carries the identical captured-at timestamp. **User impact:** without an explicit build control, a copied JavaScript snapshot could drift from the audit JSON. **Severity / priority:** C2 restricted / P0 for delivery integrity. **Recommended owner or next action:** Whole Picture reporting owner should retain the atomic builder and timestamp equality check. **Current handling:** builder rejects non-PASS, non-read-only, or timestamp-mismatched inputs; both JSON and JavaScript artifacts are preserved and checksummed. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - No new essential source is missing because of the Safari correction. All previously documented essential gaps—including the current-service forecast, FY2027 funding bridge, historical Town-budget view, commercial-cost attribution, enterprise/interfund bridge, and accepted Annual Town Report views—remain open and unchanged. The delivery fix does not widen what the report may claim. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** How can an operator independently confirm that the direct-file and JSON snapshots are identical? **Helpful control:** a manifest recording both artifact hashes under one refresh identifier. **Evidence:** the current package already checksums all release artifacts and preserves `CURRENT-DATA-SHA256.txt`, but a paired JSON/JavaScript manifest would make the relationship even more explicit. **User impact:** mainly reviewer convenience; current timestamp, validation, syntax, and release checksums already protect use. **Severity / priority:** C4 minor / P3. **Recommended owner or next action:** reporting tooling owner may add a paired-artifact manifest in a later release. **Current handling:** release checksum file and matching captured-at controls retained. ## v4.8.0 lower-level reporting assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** Which historical Town-spending change should govern the resident explanation? **Database object or source:** preserved resident technical appendix versus the preserved FY2021–FY2025 published Town-plan bridge; an accepted historical Town-budget reporting view remains unavailable. **Evidence:** one technical predecessor describes an additional $10,005,151 while the later controlled bridge reconciles $48,322,189 to $56,595,042, a $8,272,853 increase. The periods, scopes, and classifications are not silently treated as the same calculation. **Finding state:** confirmed cross-report discrepancy; not a confirmed source-value defect. **User impact:** a resident or decision-maker could believe the site gives two answers to one question. **Severity / priority:** C2 restricted / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance normalization owner and Master Control should publish an accepted historical budget view and examples that identify the governing period, scope, stage, and classification bridge. **Current handling:** the current resident route uses the $8,272,853 qualified bridge; the predecessor’s $10,005,151 remains visible only in its technical route and untouched original with a reconciliation warning. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** Can every lower-level historical result refresh and extend safely? **Database object or missing contract:** item-level accepted query/source mapping for the preserved report corpus. **Evidence:** all 36,660 original question and non-identifier numeric occurrences are preserved, but 34,791 still require exact item-level live mapping; many preserved calculations have no accepted semantic view that reproduces their period, entity, scope, stage, and category. **User impact:** the story can be preserved and qualified, but most historical results cannot yet be presented as fresh current data or extended into the next budget cycle automatically. **Severity / priority:** C2 restricted / P1, with C1 treatment where a decision-critical claim lacks a usable contract. **Recommended owner or next action:** PMO/Master Control and domain stewards should prioritize accepted semantic views by resident question and populate the existing traceability matrix with governing query identifiers and validation examples. **Current handling:** every rewritten route states its preserved evidence date; no static result is silently labeled current. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** What can Wilbraham sustainably afford before the next budget? **Database object or missing source:** governed multi-year current-service forecast and complete same-year funding, capital/debt, service, and household-impact bridge. **Evidence:** the preserved affordability reports can measure selected legal capacity, historical patterns, debt schedules, and a controlled household illustration, but cannot place dependable recurring revenue, current-service cost, existing obligations, prudent capital/reserves, proposed choices, and downside conditions on one compatible forward basis. **User impact:** the report cannot state dependable remaining recurring capacity or the combined household/service effect. **Severity / priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner or next action:** Town Finance, HWRSD, assessor/collector, capital/debt owners, and Master Control should publish accepted forecast and scenario contracts with provenance, uncertainty, and reconciliations. **Current handling:** all affordability routes say the result is not determinable; they do not substitute legal room, cash, reserves, or debt runoff for sustainable capacity. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** How can residents compare a number across reports without relearning its definition? **Database object or helpful source:** accepted public metric dictionary and report-route metadata for entity, period, unit, basis, stage, source authority, recurrence, missingness, and permitted use. **Evidence:** the preserved reports repeatedly explain these distinctions in prose, while similar labels can occur across Town, HWRSD, statewide, budget, actual, estimate, and projection scopes. **User impact:** readers and new reporters must do extra work to judge comparability, and inconsistent labels can create avoidable confusion even when the underlying value is correct. **Severity / priority:** C3 qualified / P2. **Recommended owner or next action:** PMO/Master Control should publish a versioned resident-readable metric dictionary tied to accepted view columns and examples. **Current handling:** the shared report shell keeps evidence basis and limitations visible, and the source/metric routes teach readers what to check. The lower-level rewrite did not repair or modify source data. Visual hierarchy, duplicate entry points, and report placement are recorded in the lower-level editorial crosswalk rather than misclassified as database defects. ## v4.7.0 resident-journey assessment ### 1. Problematic data that may need correction - **Affected report/question:** Where did the $8.27 million Town-plan increase appear? **Object/source:** preserved FY2021–FY2025 published category comparison; governed historical Town-budget view remains missing. **Evidence:** positive category movements exceed the net increase, several rows are combined analytical presentations, General Government requires classification-change investigation, and the comparison does not freshly reconcile to a governed historical account bridge. **Finding state:** suspected comparability/classification problem, not a confirmed source-value defect. **User impact:** a reader could mistake a broad movement for a complete causal explanation. **Severity/priority:** C2 restricted / P0. **Recommended owner/action:** Town Finance and PMO/Master Control should accept an effective-dated budget-line-to-account crosswalk and reproduce the published bridge. **Current handling:** values remain visible because they are useful preserved evidence; the report qualifies them and does not label them causes. ### 2. Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Affected report/question:** What keeps Wilbraham running, and what would change it? **Object/source:** Town budget and accounting classifications. **Evidence:** account-level actuals include salary, heating, services, and other detailed expenses, but no accepted effective-dated classification identifies continuation, commitment, maintenance, mandate, expansion, project, and discretion consistently. **User impact:** the resident-important “Run the Town / Change the Town” distinction cannot be totaled or refreshed reliably. **Severity/priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner/action:** Town Finance and Master Control should govern the classification dimensions, overrides, validity dates, and reconciliation tests. **Current handling:** the framework is shown; dollar totals are suppressed as not established. ### 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Affected report/question:** What should residents understand before approving the next piece? **Object/source:** governed multi-year current-service forecast and combined household-impact bridge. **Evidence:** present views establish selected levy, assessment, debt, HWRSD, and budget facts but do not combine continuing services, proposed additions, realistic recurring revenue, future borrowing, downside assumptions, and household distribution in one accepted contract. **User impact:** Whole Picture cannot yet state dependable remaining recurring capacity or the full household effect of the next budget. **Severity/priority:** C1 blocking / P0. **Recommended owner/action:** Town Finance, HWRSD, assessors, and PMO/Master Control should publish a reconciled scenario contract with provenance and uncertainty. **Current handling:** affordability is framed as the decision question; no certification or capacity amount is presented. ### 4. Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Affected report/question:** How were assessment and tax increases distributed around Town? **Object/source:** accepted privacy-safe reporting geography and sufficiently aggregated bill-history measures. **Evidence:** 6,069 matched MassGIS locations support value-band and provisional use-category analysis, but no accepted geography/minimum-cell contract supports neighborhood presentation and no certified parcel-bill history is available in the report. **User impact:** residents cannot yet see whether changes differed by broad area without risking overstatement or privacy concerns. **Severity/priority:** C2 restricted / P1. **Recommended owner/action:** GIS, assessors, privacy steward, and Master Control should accept large-area boundaries, suppression thresholds, use-code crosswalks, and validation examples. **Current handling:** location remains visibly unavailable—not zero; only aggregate bands and provisional categories are shown. ## v4.4.0 resident-story additions ### Problematic data that may need correction - No new numeric source defect was asserted. The preserved Town spending bridge is usable only as dated evidence because no accepted live historical view currently reproduces it (WP-PMO-012). The report qualifies rather than suppresses it. ### Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - A historical Town-budget series and resident-readable theme bridge are required for refreshable spending comparisons (WP-PMO-012). A Town-wide continuation/commitment/expansion/project classification is required before reporting a quantified “Run the Town / Change the Town” split (WP-PMO-013). ### Missing data sources essential to the reporting - A complete enterprise-fund and interfund-flow series is essential before concluding that utility charges exceed service costs or subsidize the General Fund (WP-PMO-014). The owner should be Town Finance/utilities with auditor and Master Control acceptance; the current report suppresses the conclusion and labels it not established. ### Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - A governed inventory of Town-owned parcels with legal availability, restrictions, value, carrying cost, disposition readiness, and recurring-versus-one-time fiscal effect would strengthen the revenue-options story. The report currently treats parcel sale as a question, not booked revenue or an available count. ## v4.3.0 commercial-flow additions ### Problematic data that may need correction - **Question:** What do licenses contribute? **Finding:** Annual Town Report license rows are discovery-only and may be affected by layout/OCR and fee-waiver context. **Impact:** counts or receipts could be assigned to the wrong year, class, or column. **Priority:** P1; C1 blocking. **Owner/action:** ATR normalization owner and Master Control should publish the accepted `cske_atr` view and examples. **Handling:** suppressed as reporting fact. ### Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Question:** What does commercial activity cost? **Finding:** component domains exist, but no accepted property/project/service/cost bridge or allocation-method contract exists. **Impact:** gross contribution cannot be converted into net contribution. **Priority:** P0; C1 blocking. **Owner/action:** PMO and domain stewards should establish effective-dated direct-cost and allocation contracts. **Handling:** net result labeled not established. ### Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Question:** What incentives, abatements, infrastructure commitments, or other Town support were provided? **Finding:** no comprehensive accepted register was identified. **Impact:** omitted public support can overstate commercial benefit. **Priority:** P0; C1 blocking. **Owner/action:** assessor, finance, planning, Select Board, legal-record stewards, and Master Control. **Handling:** unknown, never zero. ### Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Question:** What wider value does the commercial base create? **Helpful evidence:** accepted employment, payroll, vacancy, business openings/closures, visitor spending, traffic generation, and service-outcome series. **Impact:** the current story is fiscal and should not be mistaken for a complete economic-impact study. **Priority:** P2. **Owner/action:** planning/economic-development and state-data stewards. **Handling:** wider economic benefit left unresolved. ## v4.2.0 budget-cycle additions ### Problematic data that may need correction - **Question:** property-category distribution. **Object:** MassGIS `source_use_code`. **Evidence:** several code families have a reported median change of exactly zero. **Impact:** readers could mistake a source result or population issue for no change. **Status:** suspected, not confirmed. **Priority:** medium. **Next action:** GIS governance should validate code meaning and repeated values. **Current handling:** qualified; missing is never converted to zero. ### Data that is not yet normalized but should be normalized - **Question:** which property types experienced the increase? **Object:** MassGIS `source_use_code`. **Evidence:** no accepted resident-readable, versioned category crosswalk was identified. **Impact:** labels can oversimplify mixed and special-purpose codes. **Priority:** high. **Next action:** accept a use-code dimension and mapping. **Current handling:** exact principal codes are labeled and remaining roll-ups are provisional. ### Missing data sources essential to the reporting - **Question:** which parts of Wilbraham experienced the largest changes? **Missing contract:** accepted public-safe geography, geometry-to-assessment bridge, minimum-cell rule, and reconciliation example. **Impact:** location distribution cannot yet be published safely or consistently. **Priority:** high. **Next action:** GIS governance and PMO should define the reporting geography. **Current handling:** suppressed and labeled unavailable, not zero. ### Helpful data that would strengthen the reporting but is not mission-critical - **Question:** how did valuation changes become household bill changes? **Helpful evidence:** parcel-level certified tax components, exemptions/abatements, CPA treatment, and governed parcel identity history. **Impact:** current analysis measures assessment distribution, not certified bill distribution. **Priority:** medium. **Next action:** assessor/collector data governance. **Current handling:** qualified beside the table. **Assessment date:** August 23, 2026 **Live source:** PostgreSQL 18.4, database `cske_dev`, schema `cske` **Execution boundary:** fresh read-only transaction; no database state changed ## Direct answer The principal FY2027 General Fund, HWRSD share, FY2026 parcel-base, Town debt-schedule, and HWRSD debt-schedule values reconcile to live governed evidence. The database is substantially newer than the preserved August 20 portal, but several relationships and essential inputs remain incomplete. Those gaps limit explanation of causes, budget-to-actual accountability, school capacity, scenario ranking, household effects, and dependable recurring capacity. ## 1. Problematic data that may need correction ### P1 — FY2027 stage labels can be misread as one unchanged budget [confirmed discrepancy] - **Affected report/question:** Where are we now? What changed and why? - **Database object:** `cske.reporting_budget_lifecycle_v1`; `cske.atm_v_budget_comparison`. - **Evidence:** the General Fund row contains $57,163,106 for Department Submission, $57,089,233 for TA/Select Board Proposed, and $57,018,471 for Finance Committee Recommended/final-voted presentation. The three controlled ATM document versions preserve the $57,018,471 Finance Committee column, but that does not mean every stage column was identical. - **User impact:** wording such as “the budget never changed” can erase real stage differences even when the compared printed cells did not change across the three controlled documents. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** reporting owner should name the compared column and stage in every claim; ATM data steward should confirm the intended final-voted semantic serving field. - **Current handling:** qualified. The doorway keeps the $57,018,471 final-voted claim but the assessment records the narrower comparison boundary. ### P2 — HWRSD FY2026 debt differs by one dollar across loaded source families [confirmed discrepancy] - **Affected report/question:** What is already committed? What is the member assessment? - **Database object:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_member_assessment_v1` reports $1,425,206 for Wilbraham FY2026 debt; the ATM budget lifecycle reports $1,425,207 for the FY2026 appropriation. - **Evidence:** fresh read-only results preserve both values and their source roles. - **User impact:** an unexplained one-dollar difference can look like a calculation error or be silently overwritten. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** HWRSD/ATM reporting steward should add a source-role reconciliation with accepted tolerance and controlling-use rule. - **Current handling:** suppressed from the headline and qualified in technical assessment; neither source row is changed. ### P3 — HWRSD annual debt rows exceed the source-printed total by $2 [confirmed discrepancy] - **Affected report/question:** What is already committed? - **Database object:** `cske.sch_debt_service_fact` and source artifact `DEBT-SRC-AA563AD7819DE20FAF20`. - **Evidence:** FY2026–FY2041 row total is $30,115,833; preserved source-printed total is $30,115,831. - **User impact:** forcing a balance would silently change source evidence; ignoring it weakens trust. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** debt reporting owner should retain the row total, printed total, and $2 reconciliation difference in the serving view. - **Current handling:** qualified; the report displays the controlled row total and preserves the discrepancy. ### P4 — Eight HWRSD budget lines have unresolved monetary-column layouts [confirmed defect] - **Affected report/question:** What changed and why? Which school cost categories drove the change? - **Database object:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_data_gaps_refresh_v1` controls `SCH0153.EXC.BUD.*`. - **Evidence:** eight accepted raw lines contain six to eight monetary tokens where the normalized layout cannot be safely inferred; status is `SOURCE_REPAIR_REQUIRED`. - **User impact:** category totals or stage comparisons could omit these rows or place values in the wrong column. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** governed HWRSD loader/source-repair workflow should resolve from an official accessible table or verified PDF; no positional guess. - **Current handling:** suppressed from normalized amounts; raw lines retained and limitation displayed through the open-evidence layer. ### P5 — Legacy portal freshness language is obsolete for the live database [confirmed discrepancy] - **Affected report/question:** Where did the information come from? - **Database object:** `cske.control_schema_migration`; information schema. - **Evidence:** live database contains 650 base tables and 272 views, with latest migration `0552_GRANTS_CPA_CAPITAL_FUNDING_DEBT_PROJECT_LIFECYCLE_V01` applied August 22, 2026; the preserved portal describes an August 20 checkpoint with 425 tables and 140 views. - **User impact:** readers could mistake a historical catalog count for current database structure. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** report release owner must label preserved catalogs as historical and execute a fresh schema-state query on every refresh. - **Current handling:** corrected in v4.1.0; the live snapshot displays its own refresh time and schema state while the legacy catalog remains clearly preserved. ## 2. Data not yet normalized but needing normalization ### N1 — Budget-line-to-account mapping is absent [confirmed normalization gap] - **Affected report/question:** Where are we now? What changed and why? What is actually spent? - **Database object:** `cske.map_atm_budget_line_town_account_readiness_v`. - **Evidence:** 294 budget lines; 0 direct links; 0 normalized mappings; 294 unresolved. - **User impact:** the report cannot reliably connect each voted line to current accounts or later actuals at the same grain. - **Severity/priority:** Critical / P0. - **Recommended owner or next action:** Town accounting and ATM data stewards should establish a versioned many-to-many mapping with relationship type, effective period, source, status, and allocation basis. - **Current handling:** qualified; budget authority and actual spending are kept separate and dependable remaining capacity remains not determinable. ### N2 — Reporting periods are not linked to the conformed calendar [confirmed normalization gap] - **Affected report/question:** every historical comparison and trend. - **Database object:** `cske.finrpt_period_calendar_readiness_v`. - **Evidence:** Town of Wilbraham has 148 reporting periods and 148 calendar-unlinked periods; HWRSD has 52 and 52 unlinked. - **User impact:** period alignment depends on report logic and may allow incompatible fiscal, academic, as-of, or source-period comparisons. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** financial-reporting model owner should populate and validate conformed calendar links, preserving source labels. - **Current handling:** qualified; periods remain adjacent to claims and different windows are not reconciled implicitly. ### N3 — Source-artifact families are incomplete [confirmed normalization gap] - **Affected report/question:** Which source is current? Where did the information come from? - **Database object:** `cske.source_artifact_family_readiness_v`. - **Evidence:** 1,245 source artifacts; 466 family members; 779 unassigned artifacts; 410 singleton reviews and 25 similar-title candidate groups. - **User impact:** latest-ingested material may be mistaken for authoritative current evidence, and revisions may not be deterministically related. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** provenance steward should assign authoritative families/version states and review candidate groups without deleting history. - **Current handling:** qualified; the report uses named source artifacts/views and preserves prior sources. ### N4 — Grant entity and period conformance is incomplete [confirmed normalization gap] - **Affected report/question:** Which grants truly reduce Town cost—and when? - **Database object:** `cske.grant_conformance_readiness_v`. - **Evidence:** 68 grant-award rows have 68 unresolved entities and 20 unparsed periods; 117 funding instruments have 117 unresolved entities and 39 unparsed periods. - **User impact:** grants cannot be safely joined to entity, project, period, cash timing, match, or closeout for affordability. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** grants data steward should map canonical entities and conformed periods through the governed grant loader/repair workflow. - **Current handling:** suppressed from headline affordability and qualified as incomplete evidence. ### N5 — Most preserved display claims lack an individually governed live-query mapping [confirmed reporting-control gap] - **Affected report/question:** all original public reports. - **Database object/source:** `records/COMPLETE-REPORT-TRACEABILITY-MATRIX.csv`. - **Evidence:** 36,660 display-level traceability rows were captured after redacting identifier patterns from matrix context; 34,791 still require an exact item-level query mapping or source-only disposition. - **User impact:** preservation is complete, but many historical details cannot yet be represented as current merely because their original page still exists. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1, phased by materiality. - **Recommended owner or next action:** reporting owner should map high-materiality questions first, then work through each family with accepted query and reconciliation controls. - **Current handling:** static preserved evidence is visibly distinguished from the small live-refresh headline set. ## 3. Missing data sources essential to the reporting ### M1 — Current official Middle School capacity and utilization evidence [confirmed missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** Is the Middle School over capacity? What choice is ready? - **Database object/missing source:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_enrollment_projection_capacity_v1`; official rated capacity, functional educational capacity, room/schedule utilization, current grade-level enrollment, and current projection method. - **Evidence:** `facility_capacity_denominator_open_gap` remains true; gap controls require a current official educational-capacity study. - **User impact:** no capacity or utilization percentage can be calculated responsibly. - **Severity/priority:** Critical / P0. - **Recommended owner or next action:** HWRSD/facilities owner should provide the current official study and definitions through the governed source intake. - **Current handling:** suppressed; report explicitly says capacity is not established. ### M2 — Complete FY2027 General Fund funding bridge [confirmed missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** How much dependable room exists for something new? - **Database object/missing source:** complete governed sources-and-uses bridge from final-voted budget to recurring revenue, one-time resources, transfers, and later actuals. - **Evidence:** the budget/account map is entirely unresolved and no accepted complete recurring bridge is available. - **User impact:** the $23.924 million remainder could be mistaken for available capacity. - **Severity/priority:** Critical / P0. - **Recommended owner or next action:** Town finance/reporting owner should supply an accepted funding schedule and account bridge. - **Current handling:** qualified; remainder is described as already allocated authority, not available money. ### M3 — Later official HWRSD audited statements and referenced exhibits [confirmed missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** What changed and why? What did the District actually spend? - **Database object/missing source:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_data_gaps_refresh_v1`, controls `SCH0153.GAP.01` and `.02`. - **Evidence:** later audits were not found in the accepted corpus; minutes-referenced exhibits were not separately acquired. - **User impact:** budget values cannot substitute for independently audited actuals, and cited explanations cannot be fully traced. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** HWRSD source-acquisition owner should obtain official audits and exhibits and reconcile hashes/relationships. - **Current handling:** qualified; actual, budget, and source-reference states remain distinct. ### M4 — Executed and approved regional-agreement evidence [confirmed missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** What governance steps control school/facility choices? - **Database object/missing source:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_data_gaps_refresh_v1`, control `SCH0153.GAP.09`. - **Evidence:** available material is a non-effective draft; executed text, both town approvals, and Commissioner approval are not established. - **User impact:** the report cannot assert that proposed agreement terms are legally effective. - **Severity/priority:** High / P1. - **Recommended owner or next action:** District/legal governance owner should supply executed and approved documents through governed intake. - **Current handling:** suppressed; no effective-agreement conclusion is made. ### M5 — Proposal-level lifecycle, service, and household inputs [confirmed missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** What could the choices mean for households and services? - **Database object/missing source:** proposal-specific capital, transition, operating, staffing, contract, grant, debt, timing, service, alternative, and household evidence. - **Evidence:** BUC gap register contains 24 open items; dependable recurring capacity remains not determinable. - **User impact:** choices cannot be ranked and illustrations cannot become bill forecasts or service conclusions. - **Severity/priority:** Critical / P0 before recommendation. - **Recommended owner or next action:** proposal owners should complete a common comparison frame and governed evidence package. - **Current handling:** suppressed from rankings; limitations are placed beside the choices. ## 4. Helpful but non-mission-critical data ### H1 — Aggregate planned staffing by position [helpful missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** Which school-cost changes reflect staffing? - **Database object/missing source:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_data_gaps_refresh_v1`, control `SCH0153.GAP.03`. - **Evidence:** accepted actual FTE exists, but planned FTE is not present at budget-account grain. - **User impact:** limits explanation of staffing plans, but does not block the current budget total. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** HWRSD should provide an aggregate, privacy-safe position-control export. - **Current handling:** qualified; no individual employee or compensation information is used. ### H2 — Aggregate transportation contract and invoice schedules [helpful missing evidence] - **Affected report/question:** What drove special-education transportation costs? - **Database object/missing source:** `cske.reporting_hwrsd_data_gaps_refresh_v1`, control `SCH0153.GAP.06`. - **Evidence:** public aggregate contract/invoice schedules were not found. - **User impact:** cost changes cannot be separated into rates, routes, service volumes, or reimbursements. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** District procurement/finance owner should provide aggregate official schedules if releasable. - **Current handling:** qualified; no causal conclusion is made. ### H3 — Project-level Proposition 2½ exclusion attribution [helpful strengthening evidence] - **Affected report/question:** Which projects make up annual debt-exclusion amounts? - **Database object/missing source:** DE-1 schedules, vote certifications, and project-level principal/interest bridges. - **Evidence:** aggregate legal-room and exclusion measures exist, but complete project attribution is not established. - **User impact:** aggregate levy-capacity reporting remains valid, but residents cannot follow each excluded project to its annual household effect. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** debt/tax reporting steward should acquire and map project-level exclusion evidence. - **Current handling:** qualified; aggregate annual measures are not assigned to projects. ### H4 — Service and outcome measures linked to spending [helpful strengthening evidence] - **Affected report/question:** What did residents receive as costs changed? - **Database object/missing source:** department and District service-level/outcome measures with period and budget/account bridges. - **Evidence:** current reports identify the need but do not have a complete governed outcome layer. - **User impact:** financial movement can be explained, but value and consequence discussions remain incomplete. - **Severity/priority:** Medium / P2. - **Recommended owner or next action:** service owners should identify a small governed outcome set with definitions and reporting periods. - **Current handling:** qualified; spending increases are not labeled efficient, wasteful, or avoidable. ## Methodology All findings were produced from fresh read-only queries inside `BEGIN TRANSACTION READ ONLY` / `ROLLBACK` using `psql -X -v ON_ERROR_STOP=1`. Confirmed defects, suspected problems, normalization gaps, and missing evidence are labeled separately. No source value was corrected and no database object was changed.