# Compare reports after acceptance rules change

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic case: Five items satisfied rule v1. Rule v2 requires an additional acknowledgment; four of the same five have it.

## Decision

Show five under v1 and four under v2 for the same cohort; state that the difference is a criterion change, not one lost delivery.

## Owned work

- Freeze both criteria
  - Owner role: Acceptance owner
  - Acceptance evidence: v1 and v2 meanings and effective dates are written.
- Reassess the unchanged cohort
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: The five same item IDs are classified under both versions.
- Write the comparison bridge
  - Owner role: Report owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Five versus four is labelled rule-version movement.

## Workflow

1. Retain rule names and effective dates.
2. Use the same records when illustrating the effect of the new criterion.
3. Separate rule movement from later work and disclose unresolved acknowledgments.

## Judgment

Retrospective reclassification is not evidence that delivery quality changed. Do not overwrite historical criteria or pretend the new rule was always in force.


## Filled review note

Bridge: the same five items yield four accepted under v2; E lacks the new acknowledgment. This is a rule-change comparison.


## Workflow questions

### Can I compare five and four as a performance trend?

Not without resolving the criterion change. The example holds work constant and changes the rule.

### Must we recalculate every historical report?

That depends on the agreed reporting policy; preserve original versions and explain any restatement.

## Product connection

Bring this manual reporting policy and its owned checks into your TeamBoostAI work discussion. Native report/export fields and historical reconstruction depend on your account and implementation; this worksheet does not import or change product records.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Decision workshop

Synthetic examples only. Manual worksheet; no automatic import or product writes.

### Synthetic reporting records

Cohort | Old evidence | New evidence | Count
--- | --- | --- | ---
A–D | v1 yes | v2 yes | Four items
E | v1 yes | v2 acknowledgment missing | One item

### Version changes

Boundary | Draft | Revised
--- | --- | ---
Same cohort | Five stable item IDs | Only the criterion changes
New requirement | No acknowledgment gate in v1 | Acknowledgment required by v2

### Draft or earlier version (review its limits)

v1 snapshot: five accepted items under the original criterion.

### Revised example

Bridge: the same five items yield four accepted under v2; E lacks the new acknowledgment. This is a rule-change comparison.

### Decision situations

- Both rules and the same cohort are known: Report both classifications and label the criterion change.
- The cohort changed as well: Hold the trend comparison; separate criterion and cohort changes.
- The old criterion is missing: Recover the old rule before claiming a comparable trend.

### Method references

- The Kanban Guide, May 2025: https://kanbanguides.org/the-kanban-guide/2025.5/ — Clock and work-item definitions; examples and local rules are our own.