全年生产数据与图表看板

B is better suited to an ongoing tracker: it correctly copies Week 1, leaves later daily outputs blank, and provides correct Week 1 summaries—38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. Its validated numeric start/end selections feed coherent range and YTD formulas. A instead fills Weeks 2–48 with unsupported production values. A’s week filters are also broken: D9/E9 reference explanatory text in C5:C7, and the numeric week helper is populated only on Operator 1 rows. Its leaderboard additionally contains a circular formula at C66. B’s rendered Average Output and Total Output columns show Err:507 despite correct cached Week 1 results and Excel structured-reference formulas, so full Excel functionality remains unconfirmed.

A is substantially closer: it preserves Week 1 data and fixed assignments across all 48 weeks, and reports correct summaries—38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. Its week-range and YTD formulas cover all operators. B’s listed PivotTable areas are formula summaries; its effective week endpoints reference explanatory text in C5:C7, and its numeric week helper is populated only for Operator 1, breaking selected-week reporting. B also includes unsupported Weeks 2–48 production in YTD and has a circular formula in C66. However, A’s rendered Average/Total columns show Err:507, so its full Excel functionality cannot be confirmed.

Neither workbook fully meets the task. A wins narrowly because its data foundation and Week 1 outputs work, while B's core calculated columns visibly fail. **Submission A** - **Data sheet works:** The 'Operator Output Data' sheet renders cleanly. Week 1 matches the input (e.g., Operator 1: 950/930/940/945/955 gives a 944 average and 4,720 total). The Average and Total formulas (ROUND(AVERAGE), SUM) compute. A red-yellow-green colour scale is visibly applied to both columns. - **Dashboard partly works:** Data-validation lists exist in B5:B8. The Week 1 KPI table uses sound formulas: total 38,880; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; average per operator; day/night share. It has 4 charts, and the YTD leaderboard via SUMIF works. - **PivotTables fail:** They are SUMPRODUCT formula blocks, not native PivotTables. The selection-driven tables P1–P3 take their week bounds (D9/E9) from C5:C7, which hold text labels ('← week number used by…'). The helper column M is populated only on each week's first row. These tables would therefore return 0 or #VALUE!. - **Invented data:** Weeks 2–48 are filled with unlabeled invented output. **Submission B** - **Stronger dashboard design:** It has native PivotTables with Selected Period/YTD page filters and start/end week validation lists. KPIs are dynamic, blank future weeks are handled, inputs are validated, and weeks 2–48 are left blank for entry. - **Core calculations broken:** Average Output and Total Output use unqualified [@[Monday Output]:[Friday Output]] structured references (the checker also flags them as possible external references). These render as Err:507 in every row, including Week 1, across all shown pages. So the required auto-calculation visibly fails, and its conditional formatting cannot be seen. - **Knock-on effect:** The dashboard KPIs, charts and pivot source all depend on these columns through the WeeklyTotals and WeeklyAverages ranges, so the breakage likely spreads. **Overall:** B's interactive design is better on paper, but A delivers a working table and Week 1 KPIs, charts and leaderboard, whereas B's base calculations are visibly broken.

A is the better submission because its dashboard follows the brief more closely, though its core calculated columns may not work as delivered. **Submission A** - It builds all 48 weeks × 9 operators with fixed machine and shift assignments. - It leaves Weeks 2–48 blank for entry and fills only Week 1 from the input file. - The Dashboard has what appear to be native PivotTables, with 'Selected Period/Included' and 'Week # (All)' filters and Grand Totals. They cover operator output, machine output, shift daily averages and a YTD leaderboard. - Start and End week selectors use data-validation lists (Week_List). - The KPI block, 4 charts and per-week green/red conditional formatting are present. - All cached results match the source data: 38,880 units; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; average per operator 4,320; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%; shift daily averages 908.6 and 808.25. - Serious defect: the Average, Total and Days Entered formulas use `[@[Monday Output]:[Friday Output]]` shorthand with no table name. The renderer shows Err:507 in every Average Output and Total Output cell. This may also trigger a repair prompt in Excel and break auto-calculation, which the whole dashboard depends on. **Submission B** - The data sheet works: plain SUM/AVERAGE formulas and visible colour-scale formatting. - The Week-1 KPI block and chart source ranges are correct. - Its 'PivotTables' are SUMPRODUCT formula blocks, not PivotTables. - Those blocks are also broken. D9/E9 take the week from C5:C7, but C5:C7 hold text labels (e.g. '← week number used by the single-week view'), not numbers. The helper column M has a week number only on the first row of each 9-row block. As a result, P1–P3 evaluate to 0 and #VALUE!, and the week drop-downs drive nothing. - B invented production figures for Weeks 2–48 and did not label them as sample data. Its YTD leaderboard and YTD chart therefore reflect fabricated data, not the Week 1 data the brief specifies. **Comparison** B fails the explicit PivotTable and selection requirement and adds fabricated data. A meets the design requirements but carries a formula-syntax defect, so A is the better of the two.