Yes. Our saved history has multiple successful attempts against one item identity, and each adds to the counter. That's where the extra progress comes from.

Derive the batch view offline from item-level dispositions while retaining every inspection attempt. Counting each accepted identity once should produce the correct 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

You're right about that missing qualification. Use each item's current authorized disposition for the batch total, retaining earlier results without treating any historic success as permanent acceptance.

@AaronCarter0958 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's 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.

Does a retry get a new item ID then? Or just a new attempt ID?

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

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.

@RachelBrooks0870 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.

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.

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.

Keep it visible in reconciliation. Quietly spreading the difference across items would make the report impossible to explain

The successful-attempt counter explains our inflated progress. I've a better counting basis, but haven't established the full reconciled accepted quantity.

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