全年生产数据与图表看板

B retains the exact Week 1 inputs and fixed assignments across 48 weeks, leaves later weeks ready for actual data entry, and supplies correct average/total formulas and numeric From/To selection logic. Its displayed summaries correctly show 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, Machine 3 at 13,300, and 4,320 units per operator. A invents outputs for Weeks 2–48, compromising YTD reporting. Its Dashboard formulas use text cells C5:C7 as numeric filter bounds, its week helper is populated only on Operator 1 rows, and C66 contains the circular formula =$C66/48. B is substantially more usable, although full compliance cannot be confirmed from the available evidence.

A accurately reproduces Week 1, provides blank-safe average/total formulas, and maintains consistent assignments across 48 weeks. Its summaries reconcile to 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. B populates Weeks 2–48 with unsupported production numbers, distorting YTD. Its week-selection formulas reference explanatory text in C5:C7 rather than numeric weeks, and its numeric week helper is populated only for Operator 1, breaking selected-week analysis. B also contains a circular formula in C66. A is substantially closer to a usable tracker.

Both workbooks have the required data structure. Each has 48 weeks × 9 operators with fixed machine and shift assignments. Each reproduces Week 1 exactly and calculates Average and Total by formula. Each has a correct Week 1 KPI block: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 average; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%. Each also has four charts and week drop-down validation. The difference is the selection-driven PivotTable requirement. **Submission A** does not use real PivotTables. Its "PivotTable 1–3" are SUMPRODUCT formula tables, and they are broken: - The selection cells D9 and E9 resolve to C5–C7. Those cells hold text labels, such as "← week number used by the single-week view", not week numbers. - As a result, every week comparison fails. The operator, machine and shift totals evaluate to 0, and the average columns evaluate to #VALUE!. - Separately, helper column M is filled only on the first row of each week block (M2, M11, M20, …). Even with the selection cells fixed, only the Operator 1 row would be counted. - So the drop-downs do not drive any working analysis. A does have strengths: - Its color-scale conditional formatting on Average and Total is clearly visible. - Its fixed YTD leaderboard and chart staging data work. However, it fills weeks 2–48 with invented production figures that are not labeled as sample data. **Submission B** builds what appear to be genuine PivotTables: - They show a "Week Filter = Active" page field, "Sum of Total Output", Grand Totals, an "Average Weekly Output" by shift (Day 4,543 / Night 4,041.25), and a sorted YTD leaderboard. - These are fed by a helper column that responds to the From/To week drop-downs after a refresh. - Its KPI values are cached and correct. - It leaves weeks 2–48 ready for entry, consistent with "populate the entries for Week 1." B's weakness is that no top/bottom highlighting is visible in the rendered data sheet, despite its note claiming green/red formatting. Also, YTD currently equals Week 1. On balance, B delivers the core interactive dashboard function correctly, while A's central selected-week analysis is non-functional.

Both workbooks load the Week 1 data correctly and have 432 rows with fixed machine and shift assignments. Both also have a correct Week 1 KPI table: 38,880 total, Operator 1 at 4,720, Machine 3 at 13,300, 4,320 average per operator, and Day/Night shares of 58.4% and 41.6%. Each Dashboard has 4 charts. A does better on the central Dashboard requirement. - Its four tables have a genuine PivotTable layout: 'Sum of Total Output', 'Grand Total', a 'Week Filter' page field set to Active or (All), and a descending YTD leaderboard. - The From/To week drop-downs (WeekList 1–48) drive these through helper column L. - Its supporting SUMIFS helper tables key on the numeric week column and compute correctly, with no errors. - Weeks 2–48 are left blank for entry. That fits the prompt's statement that the four graphs, including the YTD chart, are based on Week 1 data. - A's weakness is conditional formatting. No top/bottom highlighting is visible in its render, even though the same renderer shows B's colour scales. A's note about 'green/red highlighting' is unverified. B has visible colour-scale conditional formatting and fills Weeks 2–48 with invented data that is not labelled as sample. Its Dashboard has serious defects. - Its 'PivotTables' are SUMPRODUCT formula tables, not PivotTables. - Those formulas compare against D9/E9, which pull C5/C6/C7. Those cells hold text labels such as '← week number used by the single-week view', not week numbers. - As a result, PivotTables 1–3 would total 0, and C9 and C31:D40 would return #VALUE!. - Helper column M has a week number only in each week's first row (M2, M11, M20…). Even if the inputs were fixed, only Operator 1 would be counted. - C66 contains '=$C66/48', a circular reference. - The YTD rank order is hard-coded. B's broken interactive analysis outweighs its formatting and data-volume advantages.