按集体合同生成薪酬工作簿

A is stronger: its Art. 7.4 waiver formulas check matching rehearsal locations and both calls’ daytime eligibility, whereas B assumes the same-location requirement. B also incorrectly flags every electronic-instrument substitute as requiring the synthesizer-specific 150% pay rule (Roster BB/BL). Both provide separate per-person payroll categories and editable effective-date rate tables. Neither fully meets the robustness requirement: A Setup B19:B20 and B Payroll K4:K5 automatically enable the quartet premium from four regular violin/viola/cello players without checking that they form the entire acoustic string section. An additional acoustic bass would not prevent that incorrect premium.

B is stronger: its split-rehearsal waiver formulas require matching locations and both calls to qualify as daytime rehearsals; A assumes the location condition and checks only the current call’s end. B also retains the weekly guarantee while flagging missed shows for review, rather than A’s automatic per-show proration, and separates attendance from a more manageable payroll submission sheet. Neither fully meets the requested compliance robustness, however. A’s Roster BB/BL formulas incorrectly require all electronic-instrument substitutes to use the synthesizer-specific 150% rule. B allows a synthesizer substitute to be entered as Per-service sub and receive ordinary base pay without a synth-rate warning. Both automatic quartet formulas simply count four regular/weekly violin/viola/cello rows, without checking whether an acoustic-bass player means those four are not the entire acoustic string section.

Both workbooks meet every part of the task, and their sample payroll results match exactly. Recomputing from the formulas gives the same totals in each. The synth sub earns $1,461.33 (perf $376.59 + rehearsal $278.35 + sound check $76.59 + audits $502.12 + 25% electronic premium $151.50 on base + vacation $76.18). The concertmaster earns $2,992.12. Each workbook also makes the same interpretation choices. Shared features: - **Rate updates:** each has a dated rate table that is selected automatically (A by week-ending date, B by week-beginning date). - **Editable rules:** all percentages and work rules sit in parameter tables. - **Instrument lists:** each has an extensible instrument/premium list. - **Conflict highlighting:** both mark the 9:30 AM rehearsal in red (Art. 7.3). - **Rule checks:** both check Art. 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.10, plus the Art. 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5b premium, doubling and audit rules. - **Payroll output:** each has a per-person register with grand totals (performances, rehearsals, sound checks, audits, premiums, doubling, vacation, gross) and a reconciliation check. - **Pay stub:** each has an Art. 11.4 pay stub with a dropdown. - **Cached errors:** neither file has any. A's strengths: - Cleaner layout: a separate Setup sheet, and rule-check columns grouped behind one flags column. - Larger capacity: 40 musicians and 30 services. - More granular percentage parameters. - A Calc Detail sheet, and the stub splits premiums into chair, quartet and electronic. - Audit shortfall and improper 20% designations are treated as CONFLICTs. A's weaknesses: - A weekly musician who misses shows still gets the full guarantee; this is only flagged CHECK, with no clean way to adjust. - A synth sub entered as a "Per-service sub" is not flagged. B's strengths: - More conflict checks: synth sub status mismatch, a missing first-local designation treated as a conflict, overlapping entries, more than 8 shows, and a rate period ending mid-week. - Regulars who miss shows are automatically paid per show. - Sheets are protected. - Interpretation toggles are explicit and documented. B's weaknesses: - Denser sheets: truncated setup labels and noisy TRUE/FALSE grids. - A time-display glitch on the Roster header (9:29 and 7:59 shown). - Smaller capacity: 30 musicians and 24 services. - Combined premium parameters. These trade-offs balance out, so neither is clearly better.

Both workbooks meet the core requirements, and for the sample week they give the same pay results. Each has a dated rate table (10 effective-period rows, selected with SUMIFS) and named-range parameters for every CBA percentage and rule. Each lets the contractor extend the instrument list and has dropdown-validated roster, schedule and attendance inputs. Each applies the same CBA terms: weekly guarantee for 8 shows, 3-hour rehearsal minimum with the Art. 7.4 waiver, flat 1-hour/2-hour sound check rates, 15%/20% first-local and concertmaster/lead premiums, horn and trumpet logic, the string quartet test (correctly off with 3 strings), the 25% electronic premium, the synth sub rule (lesser of 150% or the guarantee, plus 25%), 2 audits per book, 25%/10% doubling and 5.5% vacation. Both flag the 9:30 a.m. rehearsal as an Art. 7.3 conflict, and neither flags the exactly 5-hour rehearsal or the in-window sound check. Both have a per-person payroll register covering performance, rehearsal, sound check, audit, premium, doubling and vacation, with totals, a reconciliation check and a pay stub. The differences are narrow. A's behaviour is more defensible for real production weeks. It separates scheduled shows from shows played, so a regular who misses a show is paid per show played, while a short scheduled week still earns the guarantee. B pays the full guarantee whenever a weekly musician plays at least one show (flagged only for review), yet pays nothing at zero shows, which risks overpayment and is inconsistent. A also detects overlapping service entries and warns when a rate period ends mid-week. It has a 32-item compliance sheet with severity levels, 'where to fix' pointers and a ready-to-submit indicator, protects formula sheets without a password, and lists every CBA interpretation to confirm with the theatre or union. B is tidier in places: a separate Setup sheet, a separate Attendance sheet and grouped check columns. It also has a Calc Detail sheet with premium dollars by type, a pay stub with separate premium lines, a location column for Art. 7.4, 40 musician / 30 service capacity, and an explicit check for a missing electronic premium. A has cosmetic flaws: truncated setup labels and walls of TRUE/FALSE on the Schedule, and odd 9:29/7:59 times in the rendered Roster header. B's printed Rates sheet repeats the rate-table header over unrelated tables. Overall A is narrowly better on payroll correctness and safeguards, while B is slightly cleaner in layout.