Overall response
67.3% positive
148 positive responses out of 220. The percentage uses the combined response counts.
Fictional source counts · two report views · review before export
Choose another example →Inspect a simple reporting mechanism with two regional inputs. Revise the counts, introduce a missing value and check what can be reviewed or downloaded.
Marlow Research / fictional Q3 client study. Change a count, refresh the outputs and inspect what reaches review.
Source revision 1. Positive responses must be whole counts within each region’s total.
| Region | Responses | Positive |
|---|---|---|
| North | 120 | |
| South | 100 |
The revision changes North from 78 to 90. Removing it demonstrates incomplete input.
67.3% positive
148 positive responses out of 220. The percentage uses the combined response counts.
| Region | Count | Positive |
|---|---|---|
| North | 78 / 120 | 65.0% |
| South | 70 / 100 | 70.0% |
Check the counts against their source and confirm the calculation. In a real installation your specialist also assesses the method, interpretation and suitability for the client.
This simulated review stays in this browser session. It is not professional approval or delivery to a client.
Both outputs use the same weighted calculation. Source changes invalidate the previous review. Incomplete or invalid counts prevent a refresh and approval. The download contains the inputs, results and limitations.
Everything runs locally in this browser. This is fictional deterministic software, with no live AI, external data connection, statistical inference or professional approval. A real installation needs its own representative inputs, agreed tests and specialist acceptance.