Eleven checks ran on Alberta data today. Three produced something a deputy minister should look at. A short list of names showed up across more than one check. Three checks were refused because the data could not support the question.
Picked from the run. Each one is a read on what the pattern means, not a gotcha. A number on its own is just a number. The read is what makes it useful.
These names showed up in two or more separate checks, on their own. No one told the system to look for them. One check is a coincidence. Two or more is something to open.
The system would not invent an answer. Each refusal names the data that would change it. This is the discipline working, not a failure.
A searchable list of every lead the system surfaced. Click any row to open the full detail. Rows marked data issue are data-quality problems, not real-world concerns. They are kept here so nothing is hidden.
| Check | Entity | One-line read | Severity | Top metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading findings... | ||||