You reconcile the three real sources, keep the source lineage, find the conflict and turn the unknown points into specific questions for the right owner.
20 to 25 minutes.There are three source files.🧠 Match → Compare → Flag → Ask🎯 Artifact: Project Review Tracker
0% completed
📥 SOURCE PACK
1. Download three source files
Download all three files. They describe the same project but they don't quite match.
📝
meeting-notes.md
Narrative notes, revised dates discussed, dependencies and comments.
📋
project-plan.csv
Commitment, owner, due date, status, dependency, next action.
📊
weekly-status.csv
Weekly status labels, evidence refs, owner and deadline.
🎭 PROJECT REVIEW
Plan says 20/9, meeting notes say 25/9, what should the tracker write?
🧠 WORKING MODEL
3. Match → Compare → Flag → Ask
1 · MATCH Which line is talking about the same commitment?
2 · COMPARE Does the owner, date, status, evidence match?
3 · FLAG Mismatch, missing, unsupported, overdue?
4 · ASK What questions do you need to ask the right person to resolve?
AI is very powerful at reconciliation. The manager still owns the commitment truth..
🔗 STEP 1 · MATCH
4. The same commitment can be called in many ways
“Store E rollout” / “system integration Store E” / “rollout readiness Store E”
5. Find points that need attention from the manager
🎭 STATUS ≠ EVIDENCE
Does 100% mean that you're done?
Project plan says COMPLETE, weekly status says 100%, meeting notes say attendance list hasn't been uploaded.
❓ STEP 4 · ASK
Flag problem is not enough.
Pricing signage unknown owner.
🛠 HANDS-ON · READ SEPARATELY FIRST
Don't merge from the beginning.
Read each source separately. Not reconcile. For each source, extract: - commitment or milestone; - commitment ID if available; - owner; - due date; - status; - evidence ref; - dependency; - next action; - next action date. Keep the source name for each line. Do not self-add missing owner, deadline or evidence. Do not consider GREEN / 100% as proof of completion.
If you merge too soon, you could lose source lineage And I don't know where the conflict is coming from.
🛠 HANDS-ON · RECONCILE
After extracting the individual, combine the commitment
Now put the lines together that talk about the same commitment. With each commitment: 1. keep the owner, due date, status and evidence of each source; 2. don't silently choose which source is more correct; 3. clear flag: - due-date mismatch; - owner UNKNOWN / owner conflict; - status without evidence; - unresolved dependency; - overdue next action; 4. add next_human_check is a specific question that needs to be asked the right person to confirm. Do not automatically change the deadline. Do not appoint the owner. Do not consider GREEN / 100% as proof completed.
🎯 BUILD THE TRACKER
What should Project Review Tracker have?
Commitment
Current source facts
Flag
Why it matters
Next human check
Store E rollout
20/9 in plan & status; 25/9 discussed; system dependency open
Due-date mismatch + dependency
Rollout readiness unclear
Minh confirms the last committed date and impact of the Sept. 22 patch?
Training
COMPLETE / 100%; attendance evidence missing
Status without evidence
Completion not proven
Lan confirms attendance list when it's uploaded?
Pricing signage
Owner blank / not confirmed / Tuan
Owner conflict
Accountability unknown
Who's ultimately responsible for the installation before 9/11.
⏸ BUILD CHECKPOINT
11th, is the tracker ready for management?
Grounded Every field tracks the source?
Transparent Conflict is held, not merged?
Actionable Does each issue have a specific question or next check?
Write a management summary.
The art of the body
12. Create your own Project Review Tracker
Active commitments
Attention needed
Next human checks
Management summary
0/6
You have completed Build 3 · Project Tracker.
One sentence to carry: Don't use AI to determine which tracker is right. Use AI to find the wrong places and turn them into questions that need verification by the person in charge.