A Filtered Spreadsheet View Is Not the Whole Source

Before turning a spreadsheet into report notes, record whether you are looking at the complete relevant range or a filtered view. A short list on screen can be a deliberately selected subset. Preserve the view's context, identify the source range, and ask the document owner about any uncertainty before describing the list as complete.

This is a document preparation workflow for people using StateClaimAI's report drafting workspace. It does not claim that StateClaimAI imports workbooks, detects filters, or examines hidden content. The checks below happen in the authorised source-review process before selected notes enter a draft.

A view and a source are different records

Microsoft's Excel filtering documentation explains that filters display matching data and temporarily hide other rows. It also explains that filters across multiple columns can narrow the subset further. That limited software fact is enough to establish the practical question: what selection produced the view you received?

A screenshot, a copied list and a workbook are different forms of evidence about that selection. A screenshot may preserve what someone saw, but it may not reveal the criteria or the entire range. A workbook may allow an authorised reviewer to inspect more context, but its existence alone does not establish that the reviewer did so.

Avoid treating a gap in row numbers as a diagnosis. It is a reason to inspect the source context or ask the owner, not proof of one particular cause. Equally, consecutive row numbers in an exported document do not prove that no earlier selection occurred. Record what you can observe and what remains unknown.

Identify the range before interpreting its contents

Start with the received file identifier, version or receipt reference, worksheet name, and the table or range that supports the intended note. Identify the relevant column headings and any explanation supplied by the document owner. Keep this information with the review record even if the eventual report needs only a concise statement.

For each view used, note whether filtering was observed, which criteria were visible, and whether the view was supplied by another person or created during your own authorised review. If criteria cannot be established, write that they were not established. Do not translate an unexplained view into an apparently precise description such as 'all records for the period'.

The existing row, column and footnote guide helps preserve the meaning of an individual table entry. This workflow adds a separate check: which entries were included in the view in the first place. Correctly reading a visible row does not establish that the selection is complete.

Keep a small view record with the selected notes

A practical review record can include the following fields:

• Source identifier: received file reference, version, worksheet and range or table name.
• View context: supplied screenshot, supplied export, or authorised workbook view, with its observation date.
• Selection: visible filter criteria and who established them; separately record criteria that remain unknown.
• Intended use: the specific drafting question this view is expected to support.
• Coverage: what was reviewed, what was not reviewed, and any unresolved limit on completeness.
• Follow-up: the question sent to the responsible document owner and the response reference when available.

These are suggested editorial fields, not a required software template. A review record should be small enough to use and specific enough that someone else can locate the same source. Avoid copying entire workbooks, personal details or unrelated rows into a general-purpose drafting note merely to make the record look comprehensive.

Compare two fictional statements

Imagine a wholly fictional workbook called 'Room List A'. A reviewer receives a screenshot showing three entries with the label 'West'. The screenshot does not establish which worksheet it came from or whether another selection criterion was active. No real claim, customer or survey record is represented by this example.

An unsupported note would say: 'The workbook contains three rooms.' That sentence turns a visible subset into a claim about the whole source. A better preparation note is: 'The supplied view shows three entries labelled West; the worksheet and selection criteria have not yet been confirmed.' This preserves the observation and makes the next question clear.

Suppose the owner later identifies the worksheet and explains that the view selected West entries with a particular internal review status. Link that answer to the view record. Do not silently remove the limitation from the old note, because another reviewer may already have used it. Prepare a revised note that states the confirmed scope and keeps the earlier reference available.

The clarified view may now support a statement about that selected group. It still does not establish that every worksheet, period or category in the file was examined. A narrow, accurate statement is more useful than an expansive one that cannot be traced back to the review actually performed.

Preserve the received file while clarifying the view

Use your organisation's authorised review method and preserve the received version. If examining a working copy is permitted, distinguish it from the received file and record any review action that changes the visible selection. Do not overwrite a shared source just to obtain a clearer screenshot.

Clearing a filter, inspecting other content or making an export should follow the access and review scope already agreed with the owner. Those actions do not create permission to use unrelated data in the report. When you only have a screenshot or limited extract, ask for clarification or an appropriate source view rather than pretending that you inspected the workbook.

There is no need to invent a count for an inaccessible range. If the intended statement depends on completeness and the available source cannot establish it, keep that statement unresolved. The draft can identify the missing source context without manufacturing the contents of unseen rows.

Carry the scope into the drafting note

Use a source label that connects the note to the file and view record. The source-labeling worksheet provides a related way to keep source references alongside draft material. Retain any qualification that changes the meaning of the note; do not lose it while shortening the wording.

Before handing the note to another reviewer, ask three questions: can they locate the same source, can they tell what was selected, and can they see what was not established? If one answer is no, add the missing reference or state the limitation. This check concerns document organisation and wording, not an assessment of the underlying event.

When your selected notes are ready, use the field-adjuster workflow overview to review how the drafting service is presented, then choose whether to enter the necessary information in the workspace. For product questions use official support. A generated draft still needs human checking against the authorised source material, including the scope of any spreadsheet view used. Sources were checked on 19 October 2026.