Source inventory
The exact reports, systems, owners, timing, required status, and business-date rules before anything is built.
Proof Pack
A prepared morning brief should feel effortless to the team. Underneath it, the source layer needs to be visible: what arrived, what failed, what was caveated, and what a human still approved.
What a pilot has to prove
A reporting automation pilot should prove more than "a script can make a file." It should prove the workflow knows its inputs, names its caveats, refuses unsafe guesses, and can be handed to an operator without mystery.
The exact reports, systems, owners, timing, required status, and business-date rules before anything is built.
A readable record of each run: files processed, warnings, missing inputs, output links, and approval state.
Rules for late files, duplicate files, changed columns, wrong dates, stale data, and unsafe AI summaries.
The morning output itself: metrics, exceptions, caveats, and first moves in a format the team will actually read.
Concrete tests for happy path, missing required file, missing optional file, duplicate conflict, wrong date, and AI caveat behavior.
Operating notes covering what the workflow does, what it does not do, how to rerun it, and when to escalate.
Source inventory
Most hotel reporting workflows are described too loosely. The inventory turns "we pull the PMS report and a few spreadsheets" into explicit operating inputs.
Run log
Business date matched the control cell. Original file archived before cleanup.
Column names matched expected schema. Seven-day pickup section cleared.
Optional section allowed to ship with caveat. Rerun path recorded for the team.
AI summary held to source-backed statements and warning language carried into the output.
Tests before handoff
A pilot is not production-like until the ugly morning scenarios are tested. The goal is not to hide bad inputs. The goal is to make them impossible to miss.
Output blocks or blanks dependent KPIs. Prior-day values are not silently reused.
Brief can still ship if safe, but rate-position notes are visibly caveated.
Both raw files are archived and the workflow flags conflict instead of overwriting quietly.
Date mismatch blocks or caveats affected sections before interpretation runs.
Required field mapping fails visibly. Blank or zero is not treated as a real number.
The summary must cite missing inputs and avoid unsupported recommendations.
Next drawer
A workflow review is useful when we can inspect the real source reports, timing, owners, output, and failure points.