@SarahBaker0502 I've traced one item in our saved history and found several successful attempts with the same identity. Our counter adds each success, inflating the apparent batch progress.

Rebuild an offline total from item dispositions, keeping attempts underneath. Counting each accepted identity once should give you the right batch total.

Only if accepted means the current disposition. An item that passed and was later rejected can't stay counted just because it passed once.

Right. I should've said current authorized disposition. Keep the full history, but count an item only if its current disposition makes it accepted for this batch.

For an item that fails and then gains reviewed acceptance, should the report count one accepted item while preserving both inspection attempts beneath it?

That is the distinction: the attempt history explains what happened to the item, while its current disposition determines its contribution to the accepted-item total.

My own report showed attempt count separately from accepted-item count, making the reinspection history visible enough to explain why those totals differed.

When an item is inspected again, should its identity change, or does only the inspection attempt receive a new identifier?

Same physical item, same item identity. The distinct inspection gets its own attempt identity, linked back to that item.

@SarahBaker0502 The newer entries distinguish item and attempt identity, but some older results lack the item link needed to include them reliably in an accepted-item total.

Don't manufacture identities from event order to make them fit. Similar-looking results could be retries of the same item.

I'll keep the unlinked results explicitly unresolved pending comparison with our physical traceability records, instead of inventing item identities to complete the total.

Do unresolved items count as rejected? Otherwise the report's got another number people have to understand.

Keep them separate. Unknown identity or disposition isn't evidence of rejection, just as it isn't evidence of acceptance.

@SarahBaker0502 On my setup, a manual quantity adjustment had explanatory text but no traceable item evidence. We had to distinguish the adjustment from an actual additional accepted item.

@LiamBrooks0838 Our history also contains a manual correction with a note and no linked item evidence. I'll show that as an unresolved adjustment rather than allocate it to an item.

I've identified why the counter overstates progress and how the item-level total should work. The complete batch reconciliation is still open.

That's a useful partial result without claiming a batch quantity the item records haven't established.