Worked example

Why one question returns 99,500 or 67,000.

Follow a supplier-impact question through its records, definition and counting rule.

Concept illustration · Ontomato

Fix the scope first.

The sample asks which tire-issue orders can be traced to Supplier A’s September material batches, and their total order value. All of the data is fictional. The supplier identifier is SUP-A and the date filter applies to when a material batch was supplied in September 2025. It is not an order-date filter.

Two batches match: MB-A0901 and MB-A0902. The products PR-CITY and PR-ROAD use those batches. Four orders link to those products, but a matching product alone is not enough: the question also requires tire feedback. The delivery-only order SO-1056 is excluded.

All tire reports: three orders.

With the reported definition, SO-1042 contributes $48,000, SO-1048 contributes $32,500 and SO-1051 contributes $19,000. Add those order amounts and the result is $99,500. Four feedback records support those three orders.

SO-1042 has two feedback records, FB-701 and FB-702. That does not make it two orders. The resolver selects matching orders and sums each order’s amount once. Counting rows after a naive join would risk duplicating the amount when several feedback records refer to the same order.

Confirmed defects: two orders.

The confirmed definition adds one condition: the feedback must have confirmed set to true. SO-1048 is supported by FB-704, an unconfirmed pressure report, so that order no longer matches. SO-1042 and SO-1051 remain, contributing $48,000 and $19,000.

The new total is $67,000. The difference is $32,500, exactly the value of SO-1048. There are three supporting feedback records because SO-1042 still has two. No source amount was edited and no new order was created; only the definition changed.

Read the result within its boundary.

This is the total value of matching orders. It is not an estimate of liability, recall cost or lost revenue. The sample cannot establish those outcomes from its available fields. Keeping the measure named precisely is part of keeping the answer trustworthy.

Try both definitions in the conversation, then inspect the Ontology and Evidence tabs inside the assistant reply. For a reproducible version, download the developer sample and run reported and confirmed in your own terminal. The animation explains the interaction; the records and calculation explain the answer.

Put the idea to work.