agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in revenue tie out agent by acting on the exact problem first: tie out revenue only from the GL revenue records and the CRM pipeline export, require each matched amount to name its opportunity or journal source, and report unmatched amounts as a listed difference with no invented opportunity attached. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account, period or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue variance to the CRM pipeline error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in revenue tie out agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue variance to the CRM pipeline error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A variance report, forecast, commentary or board pack step is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a business judgement such as the budget itself or a materiality call. That is an FP and A decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named account, period or department in revenue tie out agent and record the full problem text plus the account, period or report involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: tie out revenue only from the GL revenue records and the CRM pipeline export, require each matched amount to name its opportunity or journal source, and report unmatched amounts as a listed difference with no invented opportunity attached. Verify: the single failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring accounts, periods or departments that share the same mapping, template or load, because this class of failure rarely affects only one scope. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in revenue tie out agent on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the GL actuals, the approved budget or the planning system record, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the report or close file so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue variance to the CRM pipeline error hallucination failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue variance to the CRM pipeline error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in revenue tie out agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

revenue tie out agent troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

A tie out that accepts invented matches reports a clean reconciliation that never happened, and source naming per amount is the check that keeps every match real.

Edge cases

• The period was closed, the budget was reloaded or the org mapping changed after the failing run started. Refresh the scope state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single scope proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other scopes. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared load or mapping can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The GL governs actuals, the approved budget version governs plan figures, and the planning system governs forecast; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: revenue tie out agent at current versions, plus Power BI, Excel, Tableau, Looker, NetSuite and Adaptive Planning where the query names them; sources of truth are GL actuals and the approved budget, and no extra tooling is needed beyond access to those source records.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_QVn75-LNIZ5kXY3uVSKyYg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_QVn75-LNIZ5kXY3uVSKyYg

Thread query: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for tie out the revenue variance to the CRM pipeline error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in revenue tie out agent by acting on the exact problem first: tie out revenue only from the GL revenue records and the CRM pipeline export, require each matched amount to name its opportunity or journal source, and report unmatched amounts as a listed difference with no invented opportunity attached. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account, period or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in variance explanation agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain the board explanation to the calculated bridge components, cite the bridge line behind every claim in the draft, and remove any driver, price or volume figure that does not appear in the bridge or the GL revenue detail. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account, period or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for explain the revenue variance for the board pack error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in variance explanation agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for explain the revenue variance for the board pack error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A variance report, forecast, commentary or board pack step is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a business judgement such as the budget itself or a materiality call. That is an FP and A decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named account, period or department in variance explanation agent and record the full problem text plus the account, period or report involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: constrain the board explanation to the calculated bridge components, cite the bridge line behind every claim in the draft, and remove any driver, price or volume figure that does not appear in the bridge or the GL revenue detail. Verify: the single failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring accounts, periods or departments that share the same mapping, template or load, because this class of failure rarely affects only one scope. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in variance explanation agent on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the GL actuals, the approved budget or the planning system record, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the report or close file so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for explain the revenue variance for the board pack error hallucination failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating figures not in source data for explain the revenue variance for the board pack error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in variance explanation agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

variance explanation agent troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Narrative drafting pressure rewards a confident story, so an agent invents drivers for a residual it could not explain, and bridge citation makes invented drivers visible at once.

Edge cases

• The period was closed, the budget was reloaded or the org mapping changed after the failing run started. Refresh the scope state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single scope proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other scopes. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared load or mapping can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The GL governs actuals, the approved budget version governs plan figures, and the planning system governs forecast; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: variance explanation agent at current versions, plus Power BI, Excel, Tableau, Looker, NetSuite and Adaptive Planning where the query names them; sources of truth are GL actuals and the approved budget, and no extra tooling is needed beyond access to those source records.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_1VNeyA7n2y7Ys92glcZgUQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_1VNeyA7n2y7Ys92glcZgUQ

Thread query: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for explain the revenue variance for the board pack error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in variance explanation agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain the board explanation to the calculated bridge components, cite the bridge line behind every claim in the draft, and remove any driver, price or volume figure that does not appear in the bridge or the GL revenue detail. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account, period or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in close task chasing agent by acting on the exact problem first: require every overdue claim to cite a task record retrieved from the tracker with its owner and due date, compare each cited task against that tracker before notifying, and drop any task, owner or date that appears in no tracker row. Do not rerun the whole close unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account or period first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for chase overdue close tasks and notify owners error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in close task chasing agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for chase overdue close tasks and notify owners error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A close task, reconciliation, journal or reporting step is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with an accounting judgement such as an estimate or a materiality call. That is a controller decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named account or period in close task chasing agent and record the full problem text plus the account, period or journal involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: require every overdue claim to cite a task record retrieved from the tracker with its owner and due date, compare each cited task against that tracker before notifying, and drop any task, owner or date that appears in no tracker row. Verify: the single failing account or period now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring accounts, entities or periods that share the same checklist, schedule or sync, because this class of failure rarely affects only one account. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in close task chasing agent on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the signed general ledger record, the subledger record or the bank record, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the close log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for chase overdue close tasks and notify owners error hallucination failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single account proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating figures not in source data for chase overdue close tasks and notify owners error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in close task chasing agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

close task chasing agent troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

When a tracker lookup returns empty or partial rows, an agent can invent plausible overdue tasks and owners, and a row level comparison is the only check that separates retrieved tasks from invented ones.

Edge cases

• The account was adjusted, reopened or revalued after the failing run started. Refresh the account state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single account proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other accounts. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared checklist or schedule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The signed general ledger record governs posted amounts, the subledger governs its detail, and the bank record governs cash; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: close task chasing agent at current versions, plus the general ledger, subledger or close tool the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_tfyxUX8iP5zaNO8WEy-Fbw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_tfyxUX8iP5zaNO8WEy-Fbw

Thread query: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for chase overdue close tasks and notify owners error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in close task chasing agent by acting on the exact problem first: require every overdue claim to cite a task record retrieved from the tracker with its owner and due date, compare each cited task against that tracker before notifying, and drop any task, owner or date that appears in no tracker row. Do not rerun the whole close unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one account or period first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.