What Was Compared
Both queries were run against the live Focalpoint database on 10 Sep 2026 for project 446459 (Maidenhead Grid): the exact query from the published ProjectCommitments RDL (line level, quantity gated) and the proposed rewrite (order level, values only, credits netted, floored at zero). Every difference between the two reconciles exactly to a known defect in the old calculation.
Headline
The old report overstates this one project's commitment by £42,177.52. Every penny of the difference is accounted for below, and every cause maps to one of the agreed report changes.
Per Order Differences
| Order | Supplier | Old | New | Diff | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 912364 | PT Contractors Ltd | 2,771,288.56 | 2,732,727.93 | +38,560.63 | Line 1 ordered £389.50 but invoiced £38,950.13 (roughly 100×, a possible decimal keying error or a cert matched to the wrong line). The quantity gate zeroes the line, hiding a £38.5k over-invoice. Order level netting includes it. |
| 920438 | Microll Engineering Ltd | 3,698.49 | 0.00 | +3,698.49 | The auto-split order (Issue 24, the original worked example). Line 1 over-invoiced by £3,698.49 and gated to zero; line 2 under-invoiced by the same. The order is now fully invoiced; order level nets to exactly zero. |
| 923899 | Reconomy UK Ltd | 92.50 | 43.89 | +48.61 | Second line over-invoiced (£50 ordered, £98.61 posted), gated to zero by the old report. |
| 914382 | Cable Services (Central) Ltd | 30.00 | 0.00 | +30.00 | Invoices swapped across two lines (£7,000/£7,030 and £1,988.45/£1,958.45). Old report shows £30 commitment; order level correctly nets to zero. |
| 913556 | Circle Waste Limited | 5,167.57 | 5,146.77 | +20.80 | £23.40 posted against a £2.60 line, hidden by the quantity gate. |
| 918053 | Apex Site Solutions Ltd | −124.00 | 0.00 | −124.00 | Old report shows a negative commitment, quietly reducing the project total. New report floors at zero and flags OverInvoiced. |
| 916394 | Sunbelt Rentals Ltd | −57.00 | 0.00 | −57.00 | As above: negative on the old report, floored and flagged on the new. |
| 918055 | Sunbelt Rentals Ltd | 0.00 | 0.01 | −0.01 | Quantity matched but 1p under-invoiced. The quantity gate hides it; the value rule shows it. |
| TOTAL | 2,826,879.10 | 2,784,701.58 | +42,177.52 | Reconciled exactly. All other orders agree between the two reports. | |
Additional Findings
- Order 925549 (PT Contractors) looks over-invoiced overall: £66,979.81 posted against a £34,348.62 order. The full order value invoice was matched to the retention line and £32,631.19 was also posted to line 1, a possible duplicate invoice. Old report shows zero (gated); new report flags OverInvoiced with raw value −£32,631.19. Needs Finance review.
- Order 921853 (PT Contractors): the £4,697.75 full value invoice was matched to the tiny retention line; posted £9,160.61 against a £4,697.75 order. Flagged OverInvoiced with raw value −£4,462.86. Needs Finance review.
- Order 912931 (Sunbelt): over-invoiced by £92.30, hidden by the quantity gate on the old report, flagged on the new.
- The credit note category bug, live: order 911788 (Sunbelt) line 1 shows Transaction_Total £1,798 but Transaction_Plant £2,294. A credit was netted in the total but added positively to the Plant column, £496 of disagreement in a single row. This is agreed change 3.
- Invoices matched to retention lines (921853, 925549) are a matching hygiene issue worth raising alongside the report fix.
Conclusion
The proposed order level, values only calculation reconciles exactly to the existing report, with every difference explained by a known defect: the quantity gate hiding over-invoices (seven cases), line level matching inheriting Focalpoint's auto-splits (920438, 914382), and negative commitments quietly netting off the project total (918053, 916394). The category columns on the new output sum to the commitment total on every row. This is the evidence pack for Issue 15.