Agami Reconcile

---
name: agami-reconcile
description: "Reconciles known (label, expected_value) numbers from an existing dashboard against agami's answers. Input can be a SCREENSHOT of a Metabase / Power BI / Tableau / Looker dashboard (Claude's vision extracts the pairs), a CSV, or numbers pasted inline — the user doesn't need to know which; they can just ask. For each pair, the skill generates a matching NL question, runs it through the active profile's semantic model, diffs actual vs expected, and surfaces matches in green and mismatches in red with drill-down receipts. The strongest onboarding demo for a skeptical data engineer — either we agree with their numbers (trust earned via evidence) or we surface a real definitional disagreement (trust earned via transparency)."
when_to_use: "Use when the user says 'reconcile against this dashboard', 'do these numbers match?', 'validate against my Tableau export', '/agami-reconcile <csv>', drops a screenshot of a BI dashboard (Metabase/Power BI/Tableau/Looker/spreadsheet) and asks agami to reproduce the numbers, or pastes a CSV / table of known numbers. Also use when they hand over SQL they trust ('here is the SQL behind each tile', 'validate this query part by part', 'audit this SQL', 'here is the query we trust, check it') or a list of questions with no answers ('check these questions'); the person's query is graded part by part against the semantic model and the warehouse, never taken as the answer. Also use after a run, when the user says 'keep these as golden questions' or 'promote these to a golden dataset' — the rows that agreed are split between the examples agami reads when answering and the answer key later runs are scored against. Requires agami-connect to have been run first (need a semantic model + examples library). A high-leverage validation surface for a skeptical data team — reproduce their dashboard numbers, or surface the definitional gap."
argument-hint: "<screenshot | path-to-csv | pasted numbers>"
---

# agami reconcile

You are running the reconciliation harness. Goal: take the evidence a person brings and prove agami can reproduce each answer. That evidence is labeled numbers from an existing dashboard (Tableau / Looker / Mode / Metabase / Power BI / spreadsheet), most often a **screenshot**, sometimes a CSV or pasted list; or the SQL they trust; or a list of questions. When numbers match and every part of the person's statement checks out, that's evidence the semantic model is right. When they don't, the receipt drill-down and the part ledger explain why: a definitional disagreement (gross vs net, refunds in vs out, FX rate at booking vs reporting date), a join the semantic model is missing, or a mistake in the person's own query. That is exactly the trust signal that makes a DE relax.

**The person's query is evidence, never the answer.** Every part of it is graded against the semantic model and the warehouse before anything is compared or kept.

This skill orchestrates:

1. **Extract** the evidence rows from the input — a dashboard screenshot (via vision, confirmed with the user), a CSV, a pasted list, SQL the person trusts, or a list of questions. Number parsing is always deterministic (`reconcile.py`).
2. **Grade a supplied statement** part by part: run it the way agami runs its own SQL, then grade its joins, typed values, required filters and aggregates (Phase 1.5).
3. **Generate a matching NL question** for each label that has none.
4. **Run** each question through the same NL→SQL→execute pipeline as agami-query.
5. **Compare** actual vs expected with a tolerance, as one number or as a table, and name the part that differs.
6. **Present** a markdown table with per-row status; for mismatches, render the full receipt as a drill-down; for the person's statements, the parts that fell short. Write the findings to disk.

Spec for the deterministic helpers: [`scripts/reconcile.py`](../../scripts/reconcile.py) (input reader, number normalization, diff with tolerance, the part ledger and the findings). The shared procedure lives in [`shared/evidence-row.md`](../../shared/evidence-row.md), [`shared/part-ledger.md`](../../shared/part-ledger.md) and [`shared/statement-check.md`](../../shared/statement-check.md).

## Conversation style

- **Tight loops.** This skill is a tool, not a tutorial. One question per turn, max two sentences of prose between phases.
- **Surface mismatches loud.** A reconcile run with 9/12 matches and 3 mismatches is a SUCCESSFUL run — the mismatches are the value. Lead with what didn't match.
- **Don't paste raw SQL in chat.** The receipt has it. Same hard rule as agami-query — with one exception, Phase 3e's promotion offer, where the statement is shown because it is the thing being accepted into an answer key and cannot be hidden behind a receipt link at the moment somebody agrees to replay it.

---

## Phase 0: Preflight

Same checks as agami-query / agami-connect:

1. **Plan-mode check** per [`shared/plan-mode-check.md`](../../shared/plan-mode-check.md). This skill needs Bash + Read + Write — refuse if locked in plan mode. **DO NOT write a plan file. DO NOT call `ExitPlanMode`.** Refusal text: *"I can't reconcile in plan mode — each row runs a live query and writes a receipt. Switch to **Auto** or **Edit Automatically** mode (Shift+Tab to cycle) and re-invoke me with the same input."*
2. **Credentials present** — read `<artifacts_dir>/local/credentials` for the active profile. If missing, invoke `/agami-connect` to set up first; this skill needs a working DB connection.
3. **Model present** — `<artifacts_dir>/<profile>/datasource.yaml` must exist. If not, invoke `/agami-connect`. This skill needs an introspected model to generate questions against.
4. **Input — accept any of four shapes, or a mix; the user needn't know which.** Detect what they gave:
   - **A screenshot / image** of a dashboard (Metabase, Power BI, Tableau, Looker, a spreadsheet) — the common case. Go to Phase 1's **vision branch**.
   - **A CSV** — a path in `$ARGUMENTS`, or pasted inline (write inline CSV to `/tmp/agami-reconcile-<ts>.csv`). Go to Phase 1's **CSV branch**. A third column holding SQL is the statement behind each tile: Phase 1n reads it as a statement, never as part of the label.
   - **Numbers pasted inline** as a list/table — treat as inline CSV.
   - **SQL the person trusts** — one or more statements, pasted or in a `.sql` file, alone or beside the question each answers. Go to Phase 1's **statement branch**. The statement is evidence, never the answer: Phase 1.5 grades every part of it before it is compared with anything.
   - **A list of questions** with no answers — one per line. Go to Phase 1's **questions branch**.
   A screenshot and the SQL behind its tiles may arrive together; Phase 1n joins them by label. A filled `.csv` in `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/inbox/` is the CSV branch: check the inbox before asking, so a person who filled the template and came back to say **reconcile** is not asked again. **If they gave nothing** (or just asked "can you check my dashboard?"), ask once the way `agami-connect` asks which database: **AskUserQuestion**, the four shapes as options, the lowest-friction one first, and the rarer inputs named in the prompt so they are visibly welcome (*"Something else, a pasted `label: value` list or a JSON export? Choose **Other** and paste it."*).

   | label | description |
   |---|---|
   | `A screenshot of the dashboard` | Metabase, Power BI, Tableau, Looker, a spreadsheet: whatever you have. I read the tiles and confirm what I read with you before anything runs. |
   | `A CSV or an export` | Two columns, label and value, or the template I can write for you (label, value, sql, question). |
   | `The SQL you trust` | One or more statements, pasted or in a `.sql` file. Each is graded part by part before anything is compared. |
   | `A list of questions` | One per line. Agami answers each, the run checks the query behind each answer, and you decide on the report page. |

   **When they pick the CSV and have nothing to hand, write the template and hand off**, the way connect writes `credentials.example`: with the Write tool, `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/inbox/reconcile.example.csv`:
   ```
   # One line per number to check. Keep the header; these # lines are skipped.
   # label: the tile's name.  value: the number as shown ($4.2M, 12,450, 3.1%).
   # sql: the SQL behind it, if you have it.  question: the question in your words (optional).
   label,value,sql,question
   ```
   Then: *"Fill in `local/reconcile/inbox/reconcile.example.csv`, one line per number, and come back and say **reconcile**. Nothing runs until you do."* **End the turn.** On re-entry, Phase 1n reads every `.csv` in the inbox through `reconcile.py intake`; a file still holding only the header and comments is reported as empty (exit `4`) and the person is asked again, never guessed at.
5. **If they gave a file path, validate it exists.** If not, surface the error and stop.

---

## Phase 1: Extract the (label, value) pairs

Whatever the input shape, the goal is the same normalized rows JSON. **Number parsing is always deterministic — it goes through `reconcile.py`, never the LLM eyeballing a value** (a misread expected number would manufacture a false mismatch on a verification surface).

### Vision branch — a dashboard screenshot

1. **Read the image** and extract every labeled number you can see — KPI tiles, table cells, chart value labels — as `(label, raw_value)` pairs. Keep the label the user would recognize ("Total Revenue", "Active Users — Apr"), and the value **exactly as shown, verbatim** (`$4.2M`, `₹2.16Cr`, `42%`, `1,234`) — don't convert it; the normalizer does that.
2. **Write the pairs as a 2-column CSV** (Write tool — never a heredoc/`python3 -c`) to `/tmp/agami-reconcile-<ts>.csv`, then run the SAME normalizer as the CSV branch (below) so value parsing stays deterministic.
3. **Confirm before reconciling — vision can misread.** Show the extracted pairs as a small table and ask the user to fix any misread label/number: *"I read these N numbers off your screenshot — correct anything I got wrong, then I'll reconcile."* This confirm step is **mandatory**: a wrong expected-value isn't a model bug but it reads like one. If a tile is ambiguous or partly cut off, say so and skip it rather than guess.

### CSV branch — a CSV path or inline-pasted CSV

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" intake --file "<csv_path>" \
  --source "<the person's own words for where this came from>" > /tmp/agami-reconcile-rows-<ts>.json
```

The helper (used by **both** branches) handles:
- Header detection (with-or-without first-row column names)
- 2-column or 3+ column inputs (3rd onward are appended to the label as context)
- Currency symbols / magnitude suffixes / accounting parens / percent (`$4.2M`, `₹2.16Cr`, `(123.45)`, `42%`)
- Null sentinels (`n/a`, `—`, blank)

Read the JSON. Each row is `{label, expected_value, raw_value}`. Discard rows where `expected_value` is null (unparseable) — surface a one-liner: *"Skipped 2 rows where the value couldn't be parsed: 'X', 'Y'."*

### Statement branch — SQL the person trusts

If the SQL was pasted, write it to `/tmp/agami-reconcile-<ts>.sql` with the Write tool (several statements separated by `;`); if it came as `question,sql` pairs, write those as a CSV. Take a file path as given. A statement that arrives without a question needs one before agami can be asked the same thing: derive the question the statement answers, show it, and let the person correct the wording. **Do not run the statement here.** It is evidence, and Phase 1.5 is where its parts are graded.

### Questions branch — a list of questions and no answers

Write the lines to `/tmp/agami-reconcile-<ts>.txt` with the Write tool, one question per line. These rows carry no expected value: Phase 2 asks agami each question, and until the person grades the answers there is nothing to compare against. Say so up front: *"No answers to compare with, so I'll ask agami each one, check the query behind each answer, and you decide from there."*

### 1n — Normalize every input into evidence rows

A filled template in `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/inbox/` is one of the files here, passed with its own `--file`.

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" intake --file <path> [--file <path> ...] \
  --source "<the person's own words for where this came from>" > /tmp/agami-reconcile-rows-<ts>.json
```

`parse` stays the number-only reader; `intake` reads everything `parse` reads and the other shapes too, so a run with any SQL or questions in it goes through `intake` for all of its files, the vision CSV included. One row per thing to check, `{label, question, statement, expected, raw_value, provenance}`, with any of the three evidence fields missing. Several files merge by label under a case-and-whitespace fold, so the SQL behind a tile joins the tile's row. Exit `2` is a file that could not be opened; exit `4` is an input with no question, statement or number anywhere. The shapes, the detection rules and the row are in [`shared/evidence-row.md`](../../shared/evidence-row.md).

Create the run directory `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/`, and `rows/<n>/` under it for every row that carries a statement.

**Show what was read before anything runs, and hand off**, the way `agami-connect` shows the prune page before it introspects. The intake page lists every row: the question we will ask agami (read from a label, and editable), the number expected, whether SQL came with it, and which file and line it came from. The person fixes a question we read wrong or unticks a row, generates the block, and pastes it back. It is the same design language and the same paste-back grammar as the report page.

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/render_reconcile_intake.py" --title "What we read · <profile>" \
  --profile <profile> --run <ts> --intake-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-rows-<ts>.json \
  --out "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/intake.html"
```

Then say it in two lines and **end the turn**:
> I read `<N>` rows from `<the screenshot / csv_path / the statements / the questions>`: `<n>` numbers, `<m>` with your SQL, `<k>` questions. Open the page, fix any question I read wrong or untick a row, and paste the block back; then I run. Typically `<N> × 5–15s` per row.

**On re-entry** (the block arrives, `profile:` / `reconcile-run:` / `intake:` / one JSON array / `done`), never hand-edit the rows: pipe the block to the parser, which applies it to the rows file and says what it did:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/parse_reconcile_intake.py" --block-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-intake-<ts>.txt \
  --rows-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-rows-<ts>.json --run <ts> --out "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/intake.json"
```

`intake.json` in the run directory is the run's own copy of what runs: Phase 2 reads the next rows from it, a resume on a later day reads it, and nothing under `/tmp` is needed again. `ok: true` with `kept`, `dropped` and `edited` counts means it holds exactly what runs; an edited question carries `provenance.question_from`, so it is never mistaken for one we read. A `needs_judgment` (another run's block, a row the file does not have, a question that is not text, a missing section) applies nothing: ask for the block again. If the person answers in chat instead ("looks right, go ahead"), run with the rows as read: Phase 2's first `next-chunk --rows-file` call copies them into the run directory unchanged. A per-row "is this the question?" in chat is never asked.

---

## Phase 1.5: Grade a supplied statement, part by part

For every row that carries a `statement`. Skip this phase for a row that does not.

**The person's statement runs through the guard agami's own SQL runs through, and never on a command-line tier.** [`shared/statement-check.md`](../../shared/statement-check.md) is the procedure, step by step, and [`shared/part-ledger.md`](../../shared/part-ledger.md) is what each file means. Write `statement.sql` in `rows/<n>/` first, verbatim, then check the row with one call:

```bash
"$PY" "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/check_statement.py" --profile <profile> --area <area> \
  --row-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/rows/<n>"
```

Every step that reaches the database runs inside that script, and every statement it sends goes through `execute_sql`'s guarded chokepoint with the built-in executor, never with `--no-safety`. psql, mysql, snowsql, sqlite3 and DuckDB are never used here, whatever tier the profile queries on: they have no read-only gate, no scope gate and no bound, and a statement that writes must not meet a database through them. **Never run the statement or a probe yourself.** Exit `0` means the row was checked, whatever the statement did; exit `3` stops the run (below); exit `2` means it could not start, and `statement-check.md` says why; any other exit is a crash, which stops the run too. Checking a row again is the same call, and it first clears every file the last check wrote. What the script does:

- **1.5a — Is it one read-only SELECT?** The guard's own read-only gate reads it first, per [`shared/sql-generation-rules.md`](../../shared/sql-generation-rules.md), and then its recon gate, which refuses a call that reads the server's own metadata (its version, the session's identity, a privilege check). A statement either gate refuses gets `status: "refused"` in `run.json` and the gate's `rule` (`read_only` or `recon`); nothing runs after it, and nothing is probed. Mark the row `error`.
- **1.5b — Run it the way agami runs its own.** The zero-row check, then `sm prepare`, then the statement through the guard: its result to `statement.csv`, and into `run.json` the `status`, `exit`, classifier `kind`, guard `rule`, `detail` and `remediation`, never the raw error text. **A refusal is a finding, not a crash**: a `table_scope` or `column_scope` refusal grades `scope: model_gap`, because the person wanted a table or column the semantic model does not expose; `select_star` grades `runs: query_defect`. Never rewrite the statement and never retry. Other failures carry the kind [`shared/db_error_classifier.md`](../../shared/db_error_classifier.md) names; `auth`, `dsn`, `network`, `permission` and `driver_missing` exit `3`, and so does an `engine_mismatch` refusal, which means the semantic model declares an engine its credentials do not connect to. Exit `3` stops the run as `agami-query` Phase 3b stops it: tell the person the `remediation` from `run.json`. Nothing in this phase writes `query_log.jsonl`: `agami-save-correction` reads that log's last successful line as the question to correct, and a probe there would be corrected instead of the answer. The phase keeps its own record instead: `run.json` for the statement, `zero-row.run.json` for its wrap, and a `.run.json` beside every probe's CSV, so every execution and every refusal here is written down. A wrap the guard refuses is that check not run, never a fault in the statement, and the statement is still checked on its own.
- **1.5c — Its receipt, and the semantic model's words.** `sm receipt` to `statement-receipt.json`, and beside it `sm mentions` to `mentions.json`: every description, caveat, glossary line, narrative paragraph and prompt example that mentions a table or column the statement reads. The ledger puts those words beside any part that falls short, so the caveat that shaped the SQL is read next to the number that went wrong. Quoted, never graded.
- **1.5d — Probes.** `sm join-probes` and `sm filter-values plan` emit SQL; each probe is written to its own `.sql` file, and the row's probes run as one plan through `execute_sql`'s batch door (`statement-check.md` step 8): the semantic model is resolved once and the connection kept open, every probe still through the guard on its own, each to the CSV `part-ledger.md` names with a `.run.json` beside it. The near-miss probe for a typed value runs only when its `exists` probe counted 0. Then `sm filter-values judge`. A probe the guard refuses or the database fails leaves an empty CSV; leave it there, the ledger reads it as a probe that failed. A file the ledger expects and does not find, or finds empty, is a part it grades `unresolved`, never clean.

After the script, three steps are yours. 1.5g is a judgment made by reading, and no script makes it.

- **1.5e — The ledger, run once.** `python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" ledger --row-dir rows/<n>` writes `ledger.json`: one grade per part, `confirmed`, `model_gap`, `query_defect` or `unresolved`, and the weakest grade as the row's `ledger_verdict`; a part may also be `noted`, a fact the run states and never judges, which never decides the verdict. **Run it once per row, in Phase 2e, after the comparison**, with `--with-claims` when agami's statement exists too and without it when agami's run failed. The files this phase wrote are what it reads, so nothing is lost by waiting, and a ledger written here and again later is the same ledger twice. A part reaches `model_gap` only by measurement; the statement asserting something is never the evidence for it.
- **1.5f — Its result is the expected value.** For a row that came with no number, `expected` is the single cell `statement.csv` returned (its text folded to a number by `reconcile.py diff`, which reads `$4.2M` and `47,238,221.00` alike), or the table's shape when it returned several rows. For a row that came with a tile number too, run `reconcile.py diff` between the tile and the statement's own result: a disagreement means the statement is not the tile's statement, or the data moved; flag the row in Phase 3b.5 and keep the tile's number as `expected`.
- **1.5g — Does the statement answer the question?** For every statement row, write `question_fit.json`; when the row carries a question, read the two side by side first, before anything is compared. Doubtful when the grain differs (a count of items for a question about orders), the measure differs (revenue for a question about a count), a filter is present the question never asked for or absent when it did, or the time window differs. Write `question_fit.json` in the row directory: `{"fit": "plausible" | "doubtful" | "no_question", "reason": "<one sentence, or null>"}`, with `no_question` only for a statement that came alone: against a row that carries a question it is a contradiction, and the findings verb refuses to keep such a row. This is a judgment made by reading, the one part of the ledger that is; it can withhold a row from the keep-offer and never proves anything about the semantic model. A doubtful row grades `match_unverified` at best, shows in Phase 3b.5 with the reason, and the person settles it by rewording the question or the statement and re-running that row. Phase 3e keeps a `match` row as a worked example, which teaches the AI a question-to-SQL pairing, and a sound statement paired with the wrong question is the most harmful thing that step could keep.

---

## Phase 2: Generate questions + execute

**Work five rows at a time.** `rows.jsonl` is the run's checkpoint: Phase 2d appends one record per finished row, and the next rows to run are read from it, never chosen by hand:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" next-chunk --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>" \
  --rows-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-rows-<ts>.json    # seeds the run's intake.json once; later calls need only --run-dir
```

Exit `0` hands back `chunk`, the next five rows not yet in `rows.jsonl`, with `finished`, `remaining`, `chunk_index` of `chunks_total`, and `progress`, the counts by status over the rows done so far, read from the checkpoint and never tallied by hand. Take the five through Phase 1.5 (statement rows) and 2a to 2f below; each lands in `rows.jsonl` as it finishes. When the chunk is done: build the report items for every row finished so far and render the report page (3a.5), so the person can already read the first rows, say one progress line, and **end the turn**:

> Rows 6 to 10 of 50 done. So far: `<progress as colored words, in 3a's wording>`. Page: `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/report.html`. Say **continue** for the next five, or **continue all** to run the rest without stopping.

`continue` calls `next-chunk` again. `continue all` runs chunk after chunk, a progress line per chunk and no stop, until exit `4`. Exit `4` means every row is in the checkpoint: go to Phase 3. **A run interrupted anywhere resumes with the same call**: a row in `rows.jsonl` is never run twice, and "resume the reconcile" on a later day is `python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" resume --reconcile-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile"`, which names the newest run directory that still has rows remaining (exit `4` when none does), then `next-chunk` on it. Exit `2` is a refusal and stderr says which: a run directory or rows file that is not there, a rows file that is not a list of row objects, or a checkpoint line that cannot be read. When it names a `rows.jsonl` line, fix or remove that line before continuing, never skip it, since skipping would run its row again. The first five are a smoke test: a wrong profile, a misread file or a question in the wrong words is caught at five rows, not fifty. The keep-offer stays one per run (3e), never one per chunk.

For each row in the chunk:

### 2a — Generate the NL question

A row that already carries a `question` (a `question,sql` pair, or a statement whose question the person confirmed in Phase 1) uses it as written; do not generate a second one. Otherwise use the LLM to translate `label` (+ context if present) into the most natural English question whose answer should be `expected`. Examples:

| label | question |
|---|---|
| `Q3 2025 Revenue` | "What was total revenue in Q3 2025?" |
| `Active customers (Apr 2026)` | "How many active customers did we have in April 2026?" |
| `Pipeline value (open opps)` | "What's the total pipeline value across open opportunities?" |
| `Mean order size last 30 days` | "What's the average order size over the last 30 days?" |

The semantic model + examples library are loaded; let the LLM pick the right subject areas / entities / metrics that resolve the labeled term to a concrete query.

### 2b — Run via the agami-query pipeline

**Agami's answer comes from a cold client, never from this session.** This session holds your statement, the ledger's grades and the fit reasoning; anything it wrote would not be what a person gets from agami. Ask the way the golden run asks, once per chunk, with the five rows `next-chunk` handed back:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/run_golden_eval.py" --profile <profile> --via mcp \
  --ask-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-chunk-<ts>.json --out-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/rows" --parallel 4
```

`--ask-file` takes `next-chunk`'s output as it is (its `chunk`), and spawns the operator's own client per question, several at a time. `--via mcp` is what makes the answer a person's answer: each client is served agami's own MCP tools and nothing else, so it calls `get_datasource_schema` and `get_prompt_examples` itself, scoping them as it sees fit, and runs its own statement. That is the point of asking this way. A run that pre-fetched one schema into the prompt would never exercise the things that decide whether a real question succeeds, and could pass on a semantic model nobody could query.

**It probes as much as it likes, and a query that did not answer ends the row.** Successful queries are free, and how many a row needed is the measurement: `probe_count` reads how much the semantic model failed to say up front. But the first query the database rejects or the safety check blocks stops the row, and the row's `error` is what the safety check or the database said about it. That is not a run that went wrong, it is the finding: a statement that did not run says the semantic model names something that is not there, and a client left free to retry would bury exactly that. The rule is enforced by the server, so it cannot be half-obeyed.

`--via context` is the older way, kept for comparing the two surfaces against one intake: the run pre-fetches one schema into the prompt and the client gets no tools. Each row's answer file records which ran, as `mode`, because the two measure different things.

Each row's file carries `rows/<n>/agami-answer.json` as `{row, question, sql, statements, error, mode, probe_count, probes, client_value}` (the last three only under `--via mcp`, where there is a trace to carry): `statements` is every statement the client wrote, in order, and `sql` is the last of them, the one whose result answers the question. What is reused across the chunk is what does not depend on the question; the session itself is never reused, because a fresh one is the thing being measured. One question at a time is `--ask "<question>" --out rows/<n>/agami-answer.json`. Per row, exit `0` for the batch, or a `sql` in the row's file, carries a statement: write it verbatim to `rows/<n>/agami.sql` (only `sql`; when `statements` has more than one, keep them all in the row record's `agami_statements` for the page and never run the earlier ones: the read-only rule refuses anything but a SELECT, so an earlier statement can only be a look at the data). **Under `--via mcp`, do not run it yourself:** the run has already written `rows/<n>/actual.csv` and `rows/<n>/agami-run.json`, in code. A statement the server did not run is never run again (its outcome is copied from the trace), and one that ran is run once more, only for its result, through `execute_sql`'s guarded envelope. No command-line tier is involved, and what runs is the server's own record of the statement, never the client's copy of it. Under `--via context`, run it through the profile's tier exactly as `agami-query` Phase 1e tabulates it, by file and never with `--no-safety` (stdout to `rows/<n>/actual.csv`, its exit to `rows/<n>/agami-run.json` in `run.json`'s shape). Then `sm receipt --sql-file rows/<n>/agami.sql` and the chart report, as agami-query Phase 3 does. A row whose file has no `sql` carries one of the generator's fixed sentences as its `error` (the client could not be started, timed out, exited without answering, answered without a statement, or, under `--via mcp`, reported a number it did not query or a statement it did not run); the batch exits `3` when any row is like that. A row whose query DID NOT RUN (the safety check blocked it, or the database rejected it) is different and keeps its statement, with what the safety check or the database said as its `error`. That row is `error` with the sentence as its `error`. **Never write agami's SQL yourself, and never retry with your own wording**; a row with no cold answer is an error row, and that is the finding. Exit `2` means the run could not start: the profile's context could not be built, or, under `--via mcp`, agami's tools did not come up on this machine. Stop the run and say which. A tool surface that will not start is broken tool fetching, which is a finding about the deployment — never answer the rows another way and print the numbers under agami's name.

Capture, per row:

- The generated SQL, verbatim, from `agami-answer.json` (its `sql`; and its `statements` when the client wrote several)
- The result (one cell, or the columns and a row count)
- The full chart-template HTML report (so the user can drill in for mismatches)
- The trust receipt (with confidence, signed-off-by, etc.)

The SQL you capture here is the one that lands in the row record (Phase 2d) — keep it verbatim. It is the only place the statement survives the run: the chart report at `report_path` is HTML, and nothing re-derives the statement from it afterwards.

If the SQL fails OR the result isn't a single scalar (e.g., the LLM-generated question returned a multi-row table), capture an error: `Could not extract a single scalar from the result.` These rows show up as `error` status in the report. One case is different: a row that carries the person's `statement` may legitimately return a table. Keep `recorded` as `{"columns": [...], "rows": []}` for it (the columns, never the rows), write the result CSV to `rows/<n>/actual.csv`, and let Phase 2e compare it as a table.

### 2.5 — Check agami's query when there is nothing to compare against

Only for rows that carry a question and neither a statement nor an expected value (the questions branch). Agami has answered each one in 2b and there is no number to diff against. **Two things are true of such a row, and the phase does one each.** Whether the answer is right is the person's call, because nothing here can measure it. Whether the query behind it holds up against the semantic model is not a matter of opinion, and this phase measures it.

1. **Grade agami's query, part by part.** Take agami's statement from 2b through **Phase 1.5** exactly as a supplied statement goes through it, writing it as `statement.sql` in `rows/<n>/`: the files name the statement under test, whoever wrote it. Three differences, and only three:
   - **1.5f does not apply.** Agami's own result never becomes `expected`. A row whose expected value came from the query being graded compares agami against agami, proves nothing, and reads on the page as a match. This is the never-ground-truth rule at its sharpest: the side being checked cannot supply the answer key.
   - **1.5e runs without `--with-claims`.** Claims compare two statements and there is only one.
   - **1.5g still runs**, and it is the most useful check on the page: whether agami's query answers the question asked is exactly what the person is about to judge.
   A row where agami's run failed has no query to check; it skips this phase and says so.
2. **A grade that falls short names agami, not the person.** `query_defect` on this row means agami wrote a query with a mistake in it, which the person fixes by teaching agami, not by editing anything of their own; `model_gap` is a gap in the semantic model whoever tripped on it. The card's words follow from the ledger and the row having no statement, so nothing here is written by hand.
3. **Report it on the reconciliation report**, the one page every path ends on (3a.5). The row's status is `ungraded`: its verdict says agami answered and the call is the person's, and carries what the checks found so the call is an informed one. The card's three sections are the same three: **Data** shows up to five of agami's rows, because an answer nobody can see cannot be judged; **SQL** shows agami's query, and says it is the only one written for this row; **Checks** is the ledger just run. The decisions are the same six, and the person chooses `example` when agami's answer is right (it sends agami's query for this question to `/agami-save-correction`, so agami writes it that way again), `change` when a definition is wrong, `reword` when the question was read differently, and `nothing` to leave the row as it is. `fix` is not offered here: it means "fix your query", and on this row the person wrote none.


### 2c — Diff

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" diff \
  --expected "<expected_value>" \
  --actual "<actual_value_from_query>" \
  --tolerance 0.01 > rows/<n>/diff.json
```

The diff is written to the row directory, where the record verb (2d) reads it.

Default tolerance: ±1%. The user can override with `tolerance=N%` in their original ask (e.g., "reconcile with 5% tolerance"). Tolerance applies to numeric comparisons; for text values (rare), use exact match.

Capture: `match` (bool), `delta`, `delta_pct`. When `expected` came from running the person's statement (Phase 1.5f), diff against it exactly the same way; the statement's result is the expected value, and its grades say how far to trust it.

### 2d — Build the row record

Per row:

```json
{
  "label":        "<from CSV>",
  "question":     "<LLM-generated NL question>",
  "expected":     <number>,
  "actual":       <number or null if errored>,
  "delta_pct":    <signed fraction or null>,
  "match":        true | false,
  "status":       "match" | "match_unverified" | "mismatch" | "expected_doubtful" | "error" | "ungraded",
  "report_path":  "<artifacts_dir>/local/charts/<profile>/<ts>.html",  // the full chart report for this query
  "sql":          "<the statement agami wrote, kept even when it failed; null only when none was written>",
  "recorded":     {"columns": ["<column name>"], "rows": [[<value>]]},  // what the query actually returned
  "error":        "<message if status=error, else null>",
  "provenance":   {"shape": "a|b|c|d", "source": "<the person's words>", "file": "...", "line": 2},
  "statement":    "<the person's SQL, verbatim, or null>",
  "statement_recorded":     {"columns": ["..."], "rows": [[<one cell>]]} | {"columns": ["..."], "row_count": 12} | null,
  "statement_receipt_path": "<rows/<n>/statement-receipt.json, or null>",
  "receipt_path": "<the receipt of agami's own statement>",
  "ledger":       <the ledger.json object from reconcile.py ledger: its rows, verdict and counts> | null,
  "ledger_verdict": "confirmed" | "model_gap" | "query_defect" | "unresolved" | null,
  "comparison":   {"scalar": <the diff>} | {"result_set": <the compare-results score>} | null,
  "claims":       <the sm claims diff between the two statements, or null>,
  "finding_keys": ["<keys of the findings this row contributed to>"],
  "agami_statements": ["<every statement the client wrote, in order; sql is the last>"]  // only when there were several, else []
}
```

The keys from `provenance` down are appended after `error` and every earlier key keeps its meaning; a reader that only knows the older shape keeps working. `status` gains three values beside the three it had. Their rules, applied by code and never by feel:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" status --match <true|false|none> --ledger-verdict <verdict|none>
```

| Status | When |
|---|---|
| `match` | the numbers match, and every graded part is `confirmed` (or there was no statement to grade) |
| `match_unverified` | the numbers match, but a part of the person's statement is not `confirmed`. Phase 3e never sees it: a match nobody could verify may be luck. A query written differently from agami's is not this: the claims comparison notes it (`noted`, "same answer, different query" on the page) and the row stays `match`. A table that matched only because a column of yours paired with a differently named column of agami's, where one value fills most of your column's rows, is this: the two could be different columns holding the same values, so the ledger's `value_pair` part stays open and the card names both columns |
| `mismatch` | the numbers differ and the person's statement has no `query_defect`, so agami is the likelier culprit |
| `expected_doubtful` | the numbers differ and the person's statement has a `query_defect`, so the expected value itself is in doubt. Kept out of the mismatch tally |
| `error` | the row could not run |
| `ungraded` | agami answered and there was nothing to compare against: no statement of the person's and no number. Nothing failed and nothing has been decided, so the row waits for a person on the report page (Phase 2.5). Its expected value never comes from the run |

`sql` is the statement captured in Phase 2b, written down verbatim. `recorded` is the result it returned, shaped as `columns` + `rows` — the same two keys the golden-dataset receipt uses — so whoever picks this row up later forwards it as-is instead of rebuilding it from a number and guessing at a column name.

**On a `status: "error"` row `recorded` is `null` and the statement is kept.** An error row carries nothing a later reader could mistake for a verified ANSWER, which is what `actual`, `recorded` and `delta_pct` are; a statement that failed cannot be mistaken for one that answered, because the row's own error sentence says it did not, and reading it is how a person tells a semantic model declaring a column the warehouse lacks from a query agami wrote wrong. `sql` is `null` only when agami wrote no statement at all.

**Build the record with the verb, never by hand:**

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" record --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>" --row <n> [--tolerance 0.01] [--report-path <path>]
```

It reads the row directory (`intake.json` for the label, the question, your statement and the number you gave; `agami-answer.json`, `agami-run.json` and `actual.csv` for agami's side; `statement.csv`, `diff.json` or `comparison.json`, `claims.json` and `ledger.json`) and appends the record above to `rows.jsonl`, replacing an earlier record for the same row. Exit `2` names the file it needs and cannot find: fix the run, never type the record. A question-only row is recorded `ungraded` rather than refused or written as `error`: nothing failed, and it waits for a person on the report page. Its `expected` stays empty on purpose, and the verb takes no argument that could fill it: a value the run supplied would be agami's own answer coming back as its own answer key. The keys are additive — a reader that only knows the older shape keeps working.

### 2e — Compare, as a number or as a table, and name the part that differs

For a row whose `expected` is one number, Phase 2c's diff is the comparison. For a row whose statement returned a table, compare the two result CSVs through the golden comparator, so a table-shaped answer is judged the way an answer key is:

```bash
bash "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/sm" compare-results "$ROOT" \
  --golden-csv rows/<n>/statement.csv --generated-csv rows/<n>/actual.csv \
  --match values --unordered > rows/<n>/comparison.json
```

`accuracy` of `1.0` is a match. Row order is never part of this comparison (`--unordered`): the `ordering` claim below says whether the two statements sort the same way, and a different sort is a different query, not a different answer. The score also says how far the two tables agree when they do not match: `paired_row_share` and `column_agreement` beside `column_pairs`, which the report page reads as "9 of 10 rows match".

When the row carries both statements, name where they differ before anyone reads two receipts side by side:

```bash
bash "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/sm" claims "$ROOT" --sql-file rows/<n>/agami.sql --against-sql-file rows/<n>/statement.sql > rows/<n>/claims.json
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" ledger --row-dir rows/<n> --with-claims
```

**This is the row's one ledger run.** Every file Phase 1.5 wrote is still there, so the grades are the same ones 1.5 would have produced, plus the two claim parts and, for a table that matched, a `value_pair` part for each column of yours that matched a differently named column only through one repeated value. When agami's own run failed and there is no statement to compare against, run it here without `--with-claims`. Never run it twice.

The eight claims (tables, what is selected, filter predicates, date window, group keys, join keys, ordering, limit) say which part differs; they never say who is right. Two statements are the same query only when every claim that could be read agrees, what they select included; when the data could not be compared, the page still says "same query, answer not compared" or "different query, answer not compared". Then set the row's `status` with `reconcile.py status`, from the diff's `match` and the ledger's verdict. For a table there is no `diff`: pass `--match true` when `compare-results` reports `accuracy` of `1.0`, `false` otherwise, and `none` when it could not score.

### 2f — Write the findings

`reconcile.py record` has written every row record to `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/rows.jsonl`; then:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" findings --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>"
```

It writes `findings.json` (one entry per place the semantic model was shown to be missing or wrong, with every row that showed it), `query_defects.json` (the parts of the person's statements the data proved wrong, listed apart so nothing about the semantic model is proposed from them), and `ledger.json`. Question text and SQL only, never result rows beyond the one recorded cell. This is reconcile's own record for the person; nothing reads it but them.

---

## Phase 3: Present

**Tell every row in four beats, in the reader's order.** What reconcile is for, given any input (SQL, a question, a chart, or a mix): (1) **how we read your input and how we checked it**, from Phase 1's shape and the question we read from a label, the parts of your statement that held and the ones that did not (the ledger), and whether the statement answers its question (1.5g); (2) **what agami did with the question and what it answered**, from Phase 2b, beside the value you expected; (3) **how agami got there**, from the receipt (the tables it read, the joins, the declared filters it applied, the metric it matched), the claim that differs between the two statements (2e), and the semantic model's own words about what it read (1.5c); (4) **what to change so the output matches, on whichever side the mistake is**, or **what to keep** when it already matches and every check passed: a definition through `/agami-save-correction`, a mistake in your query, a reworded question, or nothing; keep is Phase 3e's offer, made once for the batch and never per row. The summary comes first (3a), then every row in its four beats (3a.5), then the tables the beats drew from (3b to 3d), then the one offer (3e) and the close (3f). The tables and the offer keep their exact text; the beats decide what is read first.

Everything this phase says to the person follows [`shared/plain-language.md`](../../shared/plain-language.md): name who did what (you and your query, agami and its answer, the semantic model and its caveats, filters, joins and metrics, the prompt examples, and the data), and never write the word "model" on its own, because it can mean the semantic model, the AI, the prompt examples or the database and a reader cannot tell which; name the thing and never the mechanism; one idea per sentence, cause then effect then the one action; quote a caveat when it decided something. The part ids and file names stay in the tables below and in the files. The sentences around them are plain, and the AI never speaks of itself steering, front-running or deciding the answer.

### 3a — Summary line first

```
Reconciled <N> numbers: <M> match (within ±1%), <K> mismatch, <E> error.
```

When any row carried a statement, add one more line, counting the two statuses that belong to neither `<M>` nor `<K>`. Say each status in the words `reconcile.py`'s `status_words` gives it and never the status itself: a person reading `expected_doubtful` has to look it up, and that is the row where their own query is the thing in doubt:

```
<U> gave the same answer, but part of your query could not be checked; <D> gave a different answer, and your query has a problem.
```

### 3a.5 — Every row in four beats

The four beats are told on the **report page**, one card per row for a batch and a checklist with a rail for a single audited query, and the chat carries only three lines: the summary of 3a with the counts as colored words, the report's path, and one line of next steps naming what to fix, what to decide and how many rows are ready to keep. A person reading the transcript later keeps the counts and the actions; the page carries the checks. When the page cannot be written, the four beats below are said in chat instead, one block per row, in the words of `shared/plain-language.md`. A row with no statement skips beat 1's parts and says so; a row that matched with every check passed has a one-line beat 4: keep it. Beat 4 never asks anything per row; the keep question is 3e's, once.

What each card says, whether on the page or, without one, in chat:

```markdown
**Q3 Revenue** (from your CSV, tile 3, with the SQL behind it)
1. What you gave us: a question we read from the tile label as "What was total revenue in Q3 2025?", which you confirmed, and a query that passed every check but one: it leaves out the filter the semantic model declares on orders, `status != 'cancelled'`.
2. What agami did: it asked the same question and answered $3,890,000; your number is $4,200,000, 7.4% apart.
3. How it got there: agami read orders, applied the declared filter on status, and matched the metric "revenue". The two queries differ in one place, that filter. The semantic model's caveat on orders says: "cancelled orders are excluded from revenue".
4. What to change: nothing on agami's side. Your query counts cancelled orders; add the filter and the numbers match. If cancelled orders belong in revenue for you, the caveat and the declared filter are the things to change, through /agami-save-correction.

**Order count** (from your CSV, tile 1)
1. What you gave us: a number, and a question we read from the label as "How many orders were placed in Q3 2025?", which you confirmed. No query to check.
2. What agami did: 12,450; your number is 12,450.
3. How it got there: agami read orders with the declared filter on status and matched the metric "order count".
4. Keep it: the numbers match and there is nothing unconfirmed, so this row is offered below.
```

Beat 4 names the side: "your query" for a defect, "the semantic model" for a gap, "the question" for a doubtful fit, and "agami's answer" for a mismatch where your statement passed every check (a worked example is the fix). It never says "the model".

**Render the four beats as a page**, the way `/agami-connect` hands over the model explorer, so the run is shown the way the semantic model is shown. Every row is the same card: the question, one verdict carrying the measurement behind it, the one thing to do, and three sections closed at rest, **Data**, **SQL** and **Checks**, each with a one-line summary that names what did not pass when something did not, and a count when everything did. Render it after every chunk with every row finished so far; the render after Phase 2's exit `4` is the one 3a points at. The page filters by status, by who acts and by a word in the question or the beats; a filter narrows what is shown, never what the block sends, so a row decided and then filtered away is still in the block. The chat keeps 3a, the link and one line of next steps; 3b to 3d below still render when the page could not be written.

1. **Build the report items file with the verb, never by hand.** The renderer runs `reconcile.py report-items --run-dir` itself from the run directory: one item per row of `rows.jsonl`, from each row's ledger, its comparison, its claims and the two receipts, every item carrying `diff` (one row per check, `{key, state, yours, agami, note, yours_hi?, agami_hi?}`, the check named first and the two sides as values with the differing tokens marked), `result` (`data`: matches, partly, differs or could_not_compare; `query`: same, different or not_comparable; the plain-word `label`; `unchecked`, the checks on your query that could not run; `differs_in`), `fix` (your query, the semantic model, the examples, the question, agami again, or nothing), `fix_words`, `prefill`, `sentence` and `change`. You hand it words only: a words file `{"<row>": {"sentence": "…", "change": ["…"]}}` with one entry per row whose sentence or change you rewrote in the plain words of `shared/plain-language.md`. You rewrite only `sentence` and `change`, and never touch `diff`, `result`, `fix` or any other field; a words file carrying another key is refused. (`report-items --run-dir` on its own prints the items for reading.)
2. **Render from the run directory, check it, and point at it:**
   ```bash
   python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/render_reconcile_report.py" --title "Reconcile · <profile>" \
     --profile <profile> --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>" \
     --words-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-words-<ts>.json \
     --out "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/report.html"
   python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" check-run --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>"
   ```
   The renderer writes `<run_dir>/report-items.json` beside the page (for the parser and for reading), stamps the page with the digest of the items it rendered, and prints three lines: the counts by result and by fix as words, the page's path, and the next step. `check-run` exits `0` only when every row in the checkpoint has its files and the page's stamp is the digest of the current items; on `4`, fix what it names and render again. **Say the three lines the renderer printed**, the counts as colored words (match, differs, a mistake on your side, could not check): the 3a summary, the report's path, and one line of next steps. The page offers `keep` only on rows whose status is `match` with a single recorded cell, Phase 3e's own predicate; the page draws that from the items, and the parser checks it again from the run's own files, because the offer's predicate is the ledger's and never the page's. **Never write `report.html`, `report-items.json` or `rows.jsonl` with the Write tool**; the only files this session writes by hand in Phases 2 and 3 are the words file and the chunk file.
3. **Read the decisions back** when the block arrives (`profile:`, `reconcile-run:`, `decisions:` and one JSON array, `done`), handing the parser the run directory the page was rendered from. It reads which rows may be kept from `rows.jsonl` and each row's `ledger.json`, never from anything typed, and refuses a block whose `reconcile-run` is not this run:
   ```bash
   python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/parse_reconcile_report.py" --block-file /tmp/agami-reconcile-decisions-<ts>.txt --run-dir "<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>"
   ```
   A `needs_judgment` means the block did not parse, came from another run, or carries a decision that could not be applied as written (a keep the run does not allow, words beside a keep, a misspelt decision): ask for it again, apply nothing. Then, per decision: **`keep`** is the person's yes to Phase 3e's offer for that row, applied through 3e's own doors and its own rules (the split, the band, one call per row); **`change`** takes the finding and the person's words to `/agami-save-correction`, one definition at a time; **`example`** takes a statement and its question to `/agami-save-correction` as a prompt example, with the words as its note, so agami writes the query that way next time (the same door 3e's keep uses for an example, without 3e's split). **Which statement, on which row:** the person's when they supplied one; on a question-only row there is none, and the person choosing `example` there is saying agami's own query is right, so agami's is what gets sent; **`fix`** and **`reword`** come back to the person as the next thing to do, with the row's beat 4 repeated; **`nothing`** changes nothing. No decision writes anything this skill does not already write.

### 3b — Mismatches table (lead with what didn't match)

Render the mismatches as a markdown table BEFORE the matches:

```markdown
### Mismatches

| Label | Expected | Got | Δ | Drill-down |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Q3 2025 Revenue          | $4,200,000 | $3,890,000 | -7.4% | <artifacts_dir>/local/charts/&lt;profile&gt;/...html |
| Active customers (Apr)   | 12,450     | 11,920     | -4.3% | <artifacts_dir>/local/charts/&lt;profile&gt;/...html |
```

Cell formatting:
- Numbers carry the same currency / magnitude suffix as the input where unambiguous (echo the user's `raw_value` for `Expected`, format `Got` with the same shape).
- `Δ` is the signed percent (red wins emphasized in chat by ✗ prefix if Markdown rendering allows; otherwise plain text).
- `Drill-down` links to the chart-template HTML for that query. Open these to see the full receipt — that's where the definitional disagreement lives.

For each mismatch row, surface a one-line interpretation under the table:

> **Q3 2025 Revenue** — agami reports $3.89M, your dashboard says $4.2M (-7.4%). Open the receipt; the metric `revenue` here is *gross of refunds in USD at invoice date*. If your dashboard nets refunds, that's the gap.

This is where the trust win lands. The DE doesn't have to chase the disagreement — the receipt + your interpretation does it for them.

### 3b.5 — Your statements (where the evidence itself fell short)

Only when a row carried a statement, and only for the parts that did not grade `confirmed`. One rule throughout: no SQL in chat; the part's name and its note are enough, and `findings.json` holds the rest. Three blocks, because the three kinds of part answer three different questions, and a reader scanning one table counts every row as a problem with the query. The table holds the grades that judge; the two blocks under it hold what was not judged.

```markdown
### Your statements

| Label | Checked | Grade | What the ledger found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivered orders | value orders.status = 'Delivered' | a mistake in your query        | not one of the values the semantic model lists, and no row holds it; did you mean 'delivered' |
| Paid revenue     | join orders to payments           | a mistake in your query        | the join is on a different key than the one the semantic model declares |
| Q3 Revenue       | default filter on orders          | the semantic model is missing this | the semantic model declares this filter and the statement does not apply it |
| Open items       | value list for items.state        | the semantic model is missing this | the column holds 6 distinct values and the semantic model lists none of them |

**What couldn't be checked**
- Q3 Revenue, double counting in SUM(total): the pre-flight could not bind this aggregate to one table: a column inside the aggregate could not be attributed to one table
- Orders placed, answers the question: the statement may not answer the question: the question asks how many orders were placed and the statement counts order items; reword the question or the statement and re-run this row

**What this run noticed**
- Open items, rows the join leaves out, items to users: 3 of 8345 items rows have no users partner and are dropped by this inner join; counted over the whole table, before the statement's own filters; rows of users with no items partner were not counted

**What the semantic model says in words**
- items.state, column caveat: "open is state NOT LIKE 'Closed%'"
- items, table caveat: "pending fulfillment is state IN ('Open','Pending','Work in Progress')"
- example "How many pending items?": WHERE state IN ('Open','Pending','Work in Progress')
- Two of these name different values for items.state. The semantic model disagrees with itself here; which is right is the person's call.
```

Say the kinds apart in one sentence each: a `query_defect` is the person's to fix, and nothing about agami changes because of it; a `model_gap` is a place the data proved their statement right where the semantic model is missing or wrong, and a single fix still goes through `/agami-save-correction` (an undeclared value list is a field's `choice_field`, the `field_metadata` route). An `unresolved` part is neither: it says what could not be checked and why, and it sits in its own block so nobody counts it as a defect. Every grade and every part name already has its words in `reconcile.py` (`_STATUS_WORDS`, `_STATE_WORDS`, `_PART_WORDS`, `_PART_KEYS`), which is what the report page renders; use those, so the table in chat and the card on the page call the same thing the same name. Say every one of these in the words of [`shared/plain-language.md`](../../shared/plain-language.md): "the join repeats rows, so the total counts some rows more than once", never "fan-out"; "the table also holds bundles and variants", never "anti-join the child tables". A `noted` part is not a grade at all: a fact the run states and never judges, in the last block. Under all of that, when a row above carries `evidence.prose`, one line per source quoting what the semantic model already says in words about that column or table, and one sentence when two of those lines name different values: the semantic model disagrees with itself, and which is right is the person's call, never the ledger's.

### 3c — Errors block (if any)

```markdown
### Errors

| Label | What went wrong |
|---|---|
| Pipeline value (open opps) | Could not extract a single scalar — the question returned 47 rows. Try rephrasing or check that the metric exists in the model. |
```

### 3d — Matches summary (last, compact)

```markdown
### Matches (within ±1%)

7 numbers reproduced cleanly: Q3 2025 Orders, MoM growth, Avg order size, Top customer, Customer count by region, Refund rate, Pipeline count.
```

Don't dump every match's drill-down — they're not interesting. The matches build the case; the mismatches drive the conversation.

### 3e — Offer promotion

This is beat 4's keep half, made once for the batch. The rows that agreed are the most reusable thing this run produced: a question, the statement that answered it, and a number the user's own dashboard already vouches for. Nothing else in the product carries evidence from outside agami. So keep them — and keep them in **both** of the places they are worth keeping.

**They are worth two different things, and one row cannot be both.**

- A **golden item** tests the model: a later run tells you if that number drifts.
- A **prompt example** teaches it: questions like it get answered this way from now on.

A row written to both is a test grading its own study material — the example ranks first for its own question, the model reproduces it, and the item can only ever pass. So the batch is split rather than duplicated. They came from one dashboard, so they are the same family of question, which is exactly what makes holding some back meaningful.

**You do the splitting, not the user.** Which rows should teach depends on what the example library already covers, which is not something anybody can answer without reading it. `sm examples --query` already answers it, and its `high_confidence` flag is the product's own judgement of "we have a close example for this".

For each agreeing row, rank its question across the areas:

```bash
bash "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/sm" examples "$ROOT" --area <area> --query "<the row's question>" --top-k 1
```

- **`high_confidence: false`** → the library does not cover this shape. **Teach with it** — it goes to the examples.
- **`high_confidence: true`** → already covered, so another example adds nothing. **Test with it** — it goes to the golden dataset.

Two adjustments, and both are about not splitting something too small to split:

- **Fewer than four agreeing rows → all of them become golden items.** A split of three leaves too little on either side to be worth the explanation.
- **Never send more than half the batch to the examples.** This is a cap, not a preference, and it is the rule that makes the split survive an empty library: with nothing curated, every row reads as novel and the base rule would teach with all of them, leaving the golden dataset empty. That is exactly the profile reconcile is aimed at, and an onboarding run that writes no test at all has failed at the thing it was asked to do. When the cap bites, keep the highest-scoring rows as examples and the rest as tests.

**Make the offer once, here, after the summary. Never per row.** A per-row prompt turns a twelve-number reconcile into twelve interruptions and buries the mismatches, which are the point of the run.

**Say what goes where. This is not optional.** Writing to the examples changes how agami answers future questions, and that must not happen silently behind a button that says "keep these numbers". One line, in what it does for them:

> Ten of these agreed — I'll keep all ten.
> **Four as examples**, so questions like them get answered this way from now on.
> **Six as tests**, with a ±<the run's tolerance> band, so you're told if any of those numbers move.
> Save all ten?

Someone who presses enter without reading gets the right outcome; someone who reads it learns the distinction by watching it happen, which is the only way anybody will. The override is one line — "let me choose" — and not twelve prompts.

**Only rows whose `status` is `match` are offered.** That is the run's own tolerance — `reconcile.diff` decided it back in Phase 2c, and it is the only notion of agreement this skill has, so nothing here re-judges a number. One predicate drops `mismatch` and `error` together, and with them the `missing_expected` and `missing_actual` rows — those are `reconcile.diff`'s own reasons rather than a row status, and a row that could not be diffed never reached `match` either. **A row with no statement is never offered**: an error row never reached a verified answer, so there is nothing worth promoting even though its statement is on the record (Phase 2d).

**Only a single-cell result is offered.** A row whose `recorded` carries more than one column has no single number to band, and a `bounded` item over a wider result is scored on its row count alone — it would pass forever without ever checking the number it was promoted for.

**If no row agreed, make no offer at all** — not an empty one, not "there's nothing to promote here". A run where nothing matched is having a different conversation (Phase 3b), and an offer with nothing in it interrupts it.

**Every agreeing row starts selected.** The person reviewed each row's agreement as it landed; asking them to opt each one back in asks the same question twice. They can deselect any row, and **they can edit any question before it is written** — a later run regenerates SQL from the question, so the wording *is* the item.

**Show the statement and the result, not just the number.** Per row: the question (editable), the statement that answered it, and the recorded result. What they are accepting is that this statement answers this question — that is what gets replayed — and a row accepted on its number alone is a row nobody checked the meaning of.

**Declining writes nothing.** No dataset is created, no file is touched, and the run ends exactly where Phase 3f leaves it. Say that when you ask, and say it again if they decline.

#### A question asked relative to today

The save door refuses a question asked over a window that slides when its statement is pinned to fixed dates — exit `2`, nothing written. That is the **common** case here, not the exotic one: Phase 2a's own example turns `Mean order size last 30 days` into *"What's the average order size over the last 30 days?"*, and the statement that answered it names the thirty days that were current when it ran.

Two things get past the refusal and **only one of them is right**:

- **Ask which window the question means, and rewrite the question to name it.** *"'The last 30 days' was 2–31 August 2026 when this ran — save it as '…in August 2026'?"* The statement stays exactly as it ran, the question finally names the window it always meant, and the item stays true for as long as it exists.
- **Never re-anchor the statement to `CURRENT_DATE`.** It clears the lint and it is a **trap**: the band was recorded around today's value of a window that slides, so next month the same question asks about different days, returns a different number, and fails against a band nobody moved. That is a false alarm on the one surface whose whole job is to be believed.

So the offer edits the **question**, with the person's answer to "which window?". It never edits the SQL.

**Ask which window it means in the offer, before anything is written** — not after the refusal lands. A batch is written one row at a time (below), so a refusal on the seventh row arrives with six items already on disk: **items already written stay written, and nothing is rolled back**. The cheat sheet's exit-`2` row is the fallback for a question that slips through, not the plan.

#### What gets written, per row kept as a test

Write the item with the **Write tool** — never a heredoc, never `python3 -c`, per [`shared/invocation-conventions.md`](../../shared/invocation-conventions.md) — to `/tmp/agami-golden-item-<ts>.json`:

```json
{
  "query": "What was total revenue in Q3 2025?",
  "sql": "<the row's `sql`, verbatim>",
  "match": "bounded",
  "bounds": {"min_rows": 1, "max_rows": 1, "min_value": 3851100.0, "max_value": 3928900.0},
  "tags": ["reconciled"],
  "confirmed_by": {"method": "reconciled against the finance dashboard on 2026-08-31; agreed within ±<the run's tolerance>"}
}
```

- **`id` is omitted on purpose.** The save door derives it from the question, exactly as the import door does, so a promotion lands **on** an already-imported question of the same wording rather than beside it as a second copy.
- `sql` comes from the row record (Phase 2d) as it stands, verbatim. `recorded` is omitted — the save door stamps it itself and never takes it from this payload, because the golden-datasets directory has no gitignore exclusion and this row's `recorded` is the finance dashboard's own numbers.
- `match: "bounded"` because a reconciled number is one that legitimately moves. `bounded` with no band is refused (exit `2`), which is why the band below is not optional.
- **`bounds` comes from the helper, never from arithmetic written in prose:**

  ```bash
  python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/reconcile.py" band \
    --value "<the row's actual>" --tolerance <the run's tolerance>
  ```

  Pass the same tolerance the run diffed with. The four keys it prints *are* the `bounds` block — paste them in unchanged.

Then call the save door. It is the only writer of a golden dataset anywhere in the plugin, and this skill does not become a second one:

```bash
python3 "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/golden_author.py" save \
  --profile <profile> --dataset <stem> \
  --item /tmp/agami-golden-item-<ts>.json \
  > /tmp/agami-golden-save-<ts>.json
```

`<stem>` is the dataset's **filename stem** — one plain name (`reconciled`), never a path and never `reconciled.yaml`. Ask which dataset once, for the whole batch.

**One call per kept row.** The door takes one item, not an array — ten kept rows are ten runs of that command, each with its own item file. The dataset is asked once; the writing is a loop.

**Pass `--confirm-convention` on a promoted row.** The save door checks a statement against the profile's own examples and stops when they disagree, which is right when somebody is authoring a key by hand. Here it is redundant and wrong: the statement being saved is the one agami itself generated *from* those examples minutes ago, and a stop would ask the person to confirm a convention they never departed from.

#### What gets written, per row kept as an example

Write the pair with the **Write tool** to `/tmp/agami-reconciled-example-<ts>.json` — a JSON **array**, one entry per row going to the examples:

```json
[{"question": "What was total revenue in Q3 2025?", "sql": "<the row's `sql`, verbatim>",
  "tables": ["<from the row's statement>"], "source": "reconcile", "status": "confirmed",
  "created_at": "<ISO8601 UTC>"}]
```

Then the packaged writer, which dedups by question and creates the library if it is absent:

```bash
bash "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/sm" add-example "$ROOT" --area <area> --file /tmp/agami-reconciled-example-<ts>.json
```

`<area>` is the subject area whose tables the statement reads — the same choice `agami-save-correction` makes, and the same writer. **Do not hand-edit `examples.yaml`**, and do not invent a second way in.

`status: "confirmed"` is honest here in a way it rarely is: the number was verified against a source outside agami. That is stronger evidence than the recollection behind most curated examples.

#### `confirmed_by.method` — two shapes, kept apart

The method line is what somebody consults a year later to find out where this item's authority came from, so the two ways a number reaches a dataset from here read differently on purpose. Each names **the source, the date and the tolerance**:

- **Agreed** — the row matched and the person accepted the offer:

  > `reconciled against <source> on <date>; agreed within ±<tolerance>`

- **Resolved** — the row did *not* match, and the person judged agami right anyway:

  > `reconciled against <source> on <date>; disagreed beyond ±<tolerance>, resolved in agami's favour by the analyst`

`<source>` is what the numbers came from, as the user described it ("the finance dashboard", "the Q3 export"); `<date>` is the day the run happened.

**The resolution path is not part of the offer.** A disagreeing row is not offered and cannot be written by accepting the offer — the selection has no room for one. If the person opens a mismatch, decides their dashboard is wrong and agami is right, they have to say so explicitly, as its own step, and it writes with the *resolved* method above. **That friction is deliberate**: promoting a mismatch writes an answer key that contradicts the number the team currently believes, and that should cost a sentence rather than a checkbox.

#### If the item already exists

**Read which payload the `1` carries before you answer it — there are two, and the wrong flag clears neither.** A `needs_confirmation_convention` payload means the statement departs from the profile's own curated examples; on a promotion that is expected and not interesting, because the statement being saved is the one agami generated *from* those examples minutes ago. Pass `--confirm-convention` for it. Everything below is the other payload.

Exit `1`, a `needs_confirmation` payload, and **nothing written**. Render the `before` AND the `after` for every id — the item on disk and the one that would take its place — ask, and only on an explicit yes re-run the **same command with `--confirm-replace` appended**. **Never pass `--confirm-replace` pre-emptively**: the flag means one thing, that a person saw both sides and said yes, and passing it before that has happened makes the stop decorative.

A replacement is wholesale — the item sent is the item written — so read the `before` and carry forward whatever it holds that still applies (its `tags`, a `must_filter`) into the item JSON before you re-run. On a no, say the file is untouched and stop.

### 3f — Closing prompt

```
Re-run with `tolerance=5%` to see softer matches, or open any drill-down to find the definitional gap.
```

End the turn. The user typically:
- Opens a mismatch's drill-down, finds the definitional gap, says *"the dashboard is gross-of-refunds; can we update the metric?"* — chain into `/agami-save-correction` to update the metric definition.
- Asks `tolerance=5%` to widen the matches.
- Asks for a different CSV.
- Takes the promotion offer from Phase 3e, and the rows that agreed become a golden dataset later runs are scored against.
- Asks about a part in the "Your statements" table. Point at `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/findings.json` and `query_defects.json`; a fix to one definition goes through `/agami-save-correction`, which grades a pasted statement with the same ledger.

---

## Hard rules

1. **No automatic question generation for ambiguous labels.** If the label is too short or too vague (e.g., `Total`, `Number`, `Value`), surface to the user: *"Row 5's label is just 'Total' — too ambiguous to translate to a question. Skipping. Add more context to the CSV (e.g., `Total Revenue Q3` instead of `Total`) and re-run."* Don't guess.
2. **Receipt is non-optional.** Every per-row run MUST produce a chart-template HTML report with the trust receipt — that's what the drill-down link points at, and it's what makes mismatches actionable. If the underlying query path can't produce a receipt (legacy pre-trust-layer model), refuse with: *"This profile pre-dates the trust-layer launch. Re-run `/agami-connect` to enable receipts, then retry."*
3. **Don't write to the semantic model from this skill.** Reconcile reads + diffs; it never mutates a metric, a join, a column or any other part of the semantic model. If a definitional disagreement surfaces and the user wants to update the metric, route them through `/agami-save-correction`. **The writes this skill can make are Phase 3e's, and neither is a semantic-model write:** a golden dataset is the answer key that *tests* the semantic model, and the prompt-example library is what the AI *reads* before it writes SQL. Neither is the semantic model's own definitions, and this skill still never touches a metric, a join, a column or a default filter. Both writes go through the packaged writers — `golden_author.py save` and `sm add-example`, those doors and nothing else, never a hand-edited YAML — and both need the person's yes in front of them. A row reaches either one by exactly two routes: this run scored it as agreeing, or it scored a mismatch that the person has explicitly resolved in agami's favour. **No row goes to both**, which is the whole reason Phase 3e splits the batch rather than duplicating it. The skill now also writes a findings file under `<artifacts_dir>/local/reconcile/<ts>/`: findings for a person to read, in the ignored half of the artifacts, never a metric, a join, a column or a default filter. A `query_defect` in the person's statement never becomes a finding about the semantic model at all.
4. **CSV stays local.** Don't upload, don't summarize-and-send. The reconcile run produces local artifacts (the per-query chart HTML, and `/tmp/agami-reconcile-results-*.jsonl`, which now carries the statement behind every row as well as its numbers) and nothing leaves the machine. A promoted row stays local too: the save door writes into the profile's own `golden_datasets/` directory on this machine.

---

## Error handling cheat sheet

| Symptom | Action |
|---|---|
| `<csv>` doesn't exist | Refuse with one line: "File not found: `<path>`." |
| CSV has 0 parseable rows | Refuse: "No rows with parseable numeric values. Common cause: the value column has formatting like `$1,234.56 (USD)` — try simplifying to `1234.56`." |
| Every row errors out | Surface a meta-error: "All <N> rows errored — likely a model-coverage problem (the questions don't map to your schema). Run `/agami-connect reintrospect` if your schema changed; check the model has the relevant tables." |
| Single mismatch but huge delta (> 100%) | Note in the interpretation: "The delta is large enough to suggest a unit mismatch (cents vs dollars, count vs percentage) rather than a definition gap. Check `agami.unit` on the relevant field." |
| User pastes inline CSV instead of a path | Accept it. Write to `/tmp/agami-reconcile-pasted-<ts>.csv` and proceed. |
| `record`, `report-items`, `render_reconcile_report.py` or `check-run` fails | Stop. Show its error, fix the run directory it names, run it again. Never write a row record, the items file or the page with the Write tool: a page built by hand is a page nobody can check. |
| Screenshot is blurry / a value is cut off / can't read a tile | Don't guess the number. Extract what's legible, and tell the user which tiles you skipped: "Couldn't read 'Pipeline value' clearly — re-snip it or type that one in." |
| User says "reconcile my dashboard" but attaches nothing | Ask for the screenshot (or CSV / pasted numbers / the SQL they trust / a list of questions) per Phase 0.4 — don't proceed without something to check. |
| `reconcile.py intake` exits `4` | Nothing usable: no question, statement or number anywhere in the input. Say so in one line and ask again per Phase 0.4. |
| The person's statement is refused by the scope gate (`table_scope`, `column_scope`) | Not a crash. `check_statement.py` has written `run.json` with `status: "refused"` and the rule; the ledger grades `scope: model_gap`. Tell the person the semantic model does not expose that table or column. Never rewrite or retry the statement. |
| The person's statement fails the zero-row check (`table_not_found`, `column_not_found`, `syntax`) | The person's defect. `runs: query_defect`; nothing else is probed for that row. Show the one-line classifier remediation. |
| `check_statement.py` exits `3` | The database cannot be queried as configured: a failure (`auth`, `dsn`, `network`, `permission`, `driver_missing`), or an `engine_mismatch` refusal, where the semantic model declares an engine its credentials do not connect to. Stop the run and tell the person the `remediation` in that row's `run.json`. Never fall back to running the statement on a command-line tier. |
| `check_statement.py` exits `2` | It could not start: no `statement.sql` in the row directory, or `$PY` lacks agami-core (`bash "$AGAMI_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/sm" install`). Fix that and check the row again. |
| `check_statement.py` exits anything else | The script crashed. Stop the run and tell the person. Never run the statement or a probe yourself instead. |
| `sm filter-values plan` marks a value `sensitive` or unquotable | No probe is emitted for it, by design. The value is checked against the semantic model's list only; the grade is `unresolved` if the list cannot answer. Say why in the "Your statements" table. |
| A probe's CSV is empty | The guard refused it or the database failed it; its `.run.json` says which. Leave the file; the ledger grades that part `unresolved` and says the probe likely failed. Do not delete it and do not re-run with weaker guards. |
| A promotion exits `0` | Written. Report `added` / `replaced` and the path, and say the dataset can be run with "run the evals". |
| A promotion exits `1` with `needs_confirmation` | Nothing was written. Render the `before` and the `after` for every id, carry forward the `tags` / `must_filter` the `before` holds, ask, and re-run with `--confirm-replace` only on an explicit yes. On a no, the file is untouched. |
| A promotion exits `1` with `needs_confirmation_convention` | The statement departs from the profile's own examples. On a promotion this is expected — the statement is the one agami generated from those examples — so re-run with `--confirm-convention`. Do not render it as a decision for the user; it is a decision this skill has already made. |
| A promotion exits `2` | Cannot start. The `agami-save-golden:` line on stderr names the cause. Nothing was written; a rolled-back write left the previous bytes exactly as they were. |
| A promotion exits `2` saying the question moves with time and the answer key doesn't | **Rename the question, don't re-anchor the statement.** Ask which window it meant, rewrite the question to name it ("…in August 2026"), and re-run with the SQL exactly as it ran. Anchoring the SQL to `CURRENT_DATE` clears the lint and bands a sliding window around one day's value — a false alarm at the next run. |

---

## Hard rule for screenshots

The screenshot is an **image of numbers**, and a misread expected value reads exactly like a model bug. So: (1) the value is parsed by `reconcile.py`, never by eyeballing; (2) the extracted `(label, value)` table is **always confirmed with the user before any query runs** (Phase 1 vision branch). The image stays local — same as the CSV (Hard rule #4); it's never uploaded or summarized off-machine.

---

## Hard rule for a statement the person supplies

**The person's query is not ground truth.** It is evidence about one part at a time. Every part is graded against the semantic model and the warehouse (Phase 1.5), and the query asserting something is never the evidence for it; a part reaches `model_gap` only by measurement. The worked case: `WHERE state IN ('pending', 'open', 'work in progress', 'Hold')` over a column whose list of values reads `Pending`, `Open`, `Work in Progress`, `Hold`. Three of the four members are the person's mistake and grade `query_defect`; `'Hold'` is right; and the join beside them may still be a gap in the semantic model. A whole-query verdict would hide all three facts, so there is none. The statement runs through the guard agami's own SQL runs through, in code and never on a command-line tier, and a refusal is written down as a grade rather than routed around. A row whose statement has any part not `confirmed` never reaches Phase 3e's offer: its status is `match_unverified`, and a match nobody could verify may be luck.

---

## Roadmap (not in v1)

- **Tableau / Looker / Mode export parsing** — parse `.twb` / `.twbx` / JSON exports directly (today a screenshot of any of them already works via the vision branch).
- **Recurring reconcile runs** — re-run a reconcile against a pinned dashboard on a schedule, rather than by asking each time.