全年生产数据与图表看板

A is more usable: its Week 1 KPIs correctly calculate 38,880 total units, Operator 1 at 4,720 units, and Machine 3 at 13,300 units, while its range SUMIFS reference numeric B5/D5 controls. B’s effective-week formulas D9/E9 instead reference explanatory text in C5:C7, and its numeric-week helper M is populated only for the first operator each week. These faults break selected-week/range reporting. B also contains the circular formula C66=$C66/48. Neither fully meets the task: both populate unsupported production figures for Weeks 2–48 and include them in YTD, rather than basing the initial YTD view on the supplied Week 1 data.

B provides the more functional tracker: every record has a numeric week, and its Start/End Week SUMIFS calculations include all nine operators. Its Week 1 summaries correctly show 38,880 units and Machine 3 leading with 13,300. A’s selection calculations are broken: D9/E9 reference C5:C7, which contain explanatory text instead of numeric weeks, and helper column M is populated only for Operator 1 each week. Consequently, A’s selected-week summaries cannot reliably analyze all operators. Both contain the requested sheets, daily calculations and four chart objects. However, both introduce unsupported production figures for Weeks 2–48 and include them in YTD totals, making neither fully suitable for reporting actual production.

Both workbooks cover the shared basics. Each has correctly named sheets and 432 rows (48 weeks × 9 operators). Week 1 matches the input file, and each operator keeps the same machine and shift every week. Average Output and Total Output are formulas, and both columns have conditional formatting. Both include four charts and a Week 1 KPI table with correct logic: 38,880 total units, Operator 1 at 4,720, Machine 3 at 13,300, 4,320 average per operator, and Day/Night split of 58.4%/41.6%. The Dashboard sheet decides it. Submission A has blocks laid out like native PivotTables, each with a 'Week #' page filter. They show 'Sum of Total Output', 'Average of Total Output' and Grand Total rows for all four views: - operator output, sorted descending; - machine totals (12,935 / 12,645 / 13,300); - shift average (Day 4,543 / Night 4,041.2); - YTD leaderboard (total 1,898,790). The Week 1 values check out arithmetically. A's Start Week and End Week drop-down lists (B5/D5, values 1–48) work against a numeric Week # column. They drive a working week-range snapshot (SUMIFS/AVERAGEIFS) and a formula-ranked leaderboard. A's file holds cached values and shows no Excel errors. Submission B's 'PivotTables' are not PivotTables; they are SUMPRODUCT formula blocks, and those blocks are broken: - The effective week cells D9/E9 point to C5/C6/C7. Those cells contain text labels ('← week number used by the single-week view'), not week numbers. - As a result, P1–P3 filter against text and return zeros. The cells that compute E9−D9+1 (C9, C31:D40, C44:C47, C51:C53) would show #VALUE!. - Even with that fixed, helper column M holds the week number only in the first row of each 9-row block (M2, M11, …). Only Operator 1's rows could ever match. - C66 is a circular reference (=$C66/48), which triggers a warning when the file opens. - B was saved without cached values, so the file checks could not flag these errors. B's KPI table, charts and YTD leaderboard values work, but its core interactive week-selection analysis does not. A is clearly more correct and usable.

Both workbooks have the two required sheets. Each has 432 rows covering Weeks 1–48, an exact copy of the Week 1 input, fixed machine/shift assignments, SUM/AVERAGE formulas for Total and Average Output, conditional formatting, four charts, data-validation drop-downs and a Week 1 KPI block. In both, the KPI formulas resolve correctly: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 average; 58.4% day and 41.6% night. The deciding difference is whether the selected-week analysis works. In A, PivotTables 1–3 are SUMPRODUCT formula tables rather than real PivotTables, and two defects break them: 1. The effective-week cells D9 and E9 point to C5, C6 and C7. Those cells hold text labels ("← week number used by the single-week view") instead of numeric week values, so every week comparison fails, totals return 0, and the per-week average formulas (E9-D9+1) error. 2. The helper column M on the data sheet is filled only on the first row of each 9-row week block (M2=1, M11=2, and so on; M3:M10 are blank). Even with correct week inputs, only Operator 1's row would be counted. As a result, A's operator, machine and shift breakdowns for a selected week or range do not work, despite its well-designed drop-downs. Only its YTD leaderboard (a SUMIF by operator) functions. B's layout is that of real PivotTables: Week # filter rows, 'Sum of/Average of Total Output' headers and Grand Totals. They show correct Week 1 values: operators 4,720 down to 3,800; machines 12,935, 12,645 and 13,300; shift averages 4,543 (day) and about 4,041 (night); and a YTD leaderboard totalling 1,898,790. B also has Start and End Week validation lists. These drive a working Week Range Snapshot because SUMIFS compares against the numeric Week # column. It also has a dynamic LARGE/INDEX leaderboard and top-5/bottom-5 plus colour-scale highlighting, which the render confirms with red bottom performers. B therefore delivers a functional, correct dashboard, while A's core interactive pivot section is broken.