全年生产数据与图表看板

B is materially more functional. Its validated selectors resolve through MATCH to numeric week values populated for every operator row, supporting correct week-range calculations. Its Week 1 summaries correctly show 38,880 units, Operator 1 leading with 4,720, and Machine 3 leading with 13,300. A’s effective-week formulas reference C5:C7, which contain explanatory text rather than numbers, and its numeric week helper appears only on the Operator 1 row of each week, breaking selection-based analysis. Neither fully satisfies the actual-output tracking purpose: both invent Weeks 2–48 production and include it in YTD. B discloses those entries as illustrative, but still reports 1,896,040 as YTD rather than the 38,880 supported by the supplied Week 1 data.

Both preserve the Week 1 inputs and calculate correct KPI totals: 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. A is more functional: its numeric week helper covers every row, and MATCH/SUMIFS formulas correctly use the validated From/To selections. B's D9/E9 instead reference instructional text in C5:C7, while its numeric week helper is populated only for Operator 1 each week; its selected-week analyses therefore cannot work correctly. B also contains the circular formula C66=C66/48. Neither fully meets the brief because both populate Weeks 2–48 with unsupported production figures and include them in charts and leaderboards labelled YTD, rather than basing YTD on the supplied Week 1 actuals.

Both workbooks have the required data layout. Each has 48 weeks × 9 operators, the correct Week 1 values, fixed machine and shift assignments, and SUM/AVERAGE formulas for Total and Average Output. A's data sheet renders well, with colour-scale conditional formatting and good print setup. A's Dashboard, however, has serious formula defects in its main interactive section. First, its week-filter cells are broken: D9 and E9 pull from C5, C6 and C7, which hold text arrow notes (e.g. "← week number used by the single-week view") rather than week numbers. Every SUMPRODUCT in the operator, machine and shift tables therefore returns 0, and the C and D columns and C9 evaluate to #VALUE!. Second, even if that were fixed, A's helper column M has a week number only on the first row of each week (48 values in total). Only Operator 1's rows would ever match the filter. Third, C66 contains a circular reference (=$C66/48). A's 'PivotTables' are also formula ranges with pivot labels, not real PivotTables. A's Week 1 KPIs, chart source data and YTD totals do compute correctly. B's Dashboard is internally consistent. Its data validation lists for From and To week (B5 and D5) feed MATCH helper cells (T1:T3) and a fully populated week-number column (M2:M433). The KPI table therefore computes correctly: 38,880 units; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 average per operator; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%. B's dynamic summary tables work the same way. B's four pivot blocks use Excel-style layout, with a 'Week #' page filter, Row Labels, Sum/Average of fields and Grand Total. Their values are correct for Week 1 (machines 12,935, 12,645 and 13,300; shift averages 908.6 and 808.25), and the leaderboard is sorted by YTD total. B also has four charts with correct source ranges. B's weaknesses are a poor print layout, since the rendered data pages show only columns A–F, and conditional formatting that is described but not visible in the renders. Overall B delivers a working dashboard, while A's selected-week analysis would show zeros and errors.

Both workbooks have the same data foundation. Each has 432 rows covering Weeks 1–48 × 9 operators. Week 1 values exactly match the source file (e.g., Operator 1: 950/930/940/945/955). Machine and shift assignments are fixed across all weeks. Average and Total use AVERAGE/SUM formulas. Each Dashboard has 4 charts, data-validation week lists and a Week 1 KPI table. The difference is whether the dashboard logic works. Submission A works: - Its helper Week No. column is fully populated (M2:M433). - The From/To validation lists in B5 and D5 feed numeric MATCH helpers (T1:T3). These drive SUMIFS-based KPIs and a dynamic range summary that compute correctly. Defaults: total 38,880; Operator 1 tops at 4,720; Machine 3 tops at 13,300; Day ≈58.4%, Night ≈41.6%. - It has four blocks in PivotTable layout (Row Labels / Sum of Total Output, with a Week # page filter) whose Week 1 values are correct: operators 4,720…, machines 12,935 / 12,645 / 13,300, shift averages 908.6 / 808.25. It also has a sorted YTD leaderboard. - Chart source ranges correctly use the Week 1 and YTD SUMIFS. - There are no circular or invalid references. Submission B's KPI table, chart sources and YTD leaderboard are correct, and its colour-scale conditional formatting is visibly rendered. However, its selected-week 'PivotTables' 1–3 are SUMPRODUCT formula tables, not PivotTables, and they are broken: - D9/E9 read C5/C6/C7, which contain text labels ("← week number used by the single-week view") instead of week numbers. The week comparisons therefore fail, and the average columns and C9 would produce #VALUE!. - The helper column M holds a week number only on the first row of each week (M2, M11, …). Even with fixed bounds, only Operator 1 rows would be counted, so Operators 2–9, Machines 2–3 and the Night shift would read 0. - C66 is "=$C66/48", a circular reference that triggers an Excel warning. As a result, B's core interactive week/week-range analysis does not function, while A's does.