Fixed worked example: supplier publications, 2025 vs 2024. Filters above do not change these figures.
£67.95mIncrease in signed supplier amounts, 2025 versus 2024
£62.99mIncrease in supplier amounts with blank departments
92.71%Share of overall growth accounted for by that blank-label increase
Finding → interpretation
Named departments explain only part of the change
The blank-department increase accounts for most of the overall signed growth. This identifies a classification problem for departmental interpretation. It does not establish a funding decision, a service cut or the cause of the missing classifications.
Before drawing departmental conclusions, an analyst should investigate the source coding and any boundary changes. The workbook leaves the original labels and Unallocated amounts visible.
Source corrections
Preserve the source; make the correction explicit
January and February 2025 supplier reports require verified date/document-column exchanges. One February source-total row exactly repeats the month's expenditure and is excluded from the analytical rows. Empty records and verified zero sentinels are classified separately.
All other signed expenditure records, including repeated-looking and negative rows, remain. The 89 card net-plus-tax versus gross differences are review flags, without invented corrections or misconduct claims.
