QA Report: EventCo Budget vs Actual & Rolling Forecast

Generated by agents/qa_agent.py. This agent never reads data/ground_truth.md. Every check below cross-references the pipeline's own outputs against each other, the same way a reviewer would on a real, unseen monthly close with no answer key.

Status

8 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped.

Human sign-off required. This report, and the assembled pack it accompanies, are drafts. Nothing in this pipeline is sent to anyone automatically. A human reviewer must read this report and the pack, and explicitly approve before either is distributed.

Consistency checks

• PASS: all 20 material variance row(s) carry a legitimate explanation type: 4 evidence-cited, 14 labeled analyst input, 2 explicitly open
• PASS: all 34 variance-flagged row(s) are accounted for in the forecast normalization audit trail

Data governance checks

Confirms the project's core control principle: only the Narrative Agent may call an external AI provider, and only with already-aggregated summary data, never the raw dataset, never client-identifying transaction detail.

• PASS: no agent other than narrative_agent.py references an external AI provider
• PASS: narrative_agent.py's file reads are scoped to the two aggregated report files only

Narrative grounding checks

• PASS: All 15 monetary figure(s) in the narrative trace back to a source figure within 0.5%/EUR15,000
• PASS: All 17 percentage(s) in the narrative trace back to a source figure within 1.0 pp
• PASS: narrative preserves the honesty language (3 source rows had no driver)
• PASS: excluded data-error row is mentioned without being framed as a business event