The Two-Source Conflict in the Asset Register
A mid-sized logistics firm maintains an asset register in a spreadsheet and a separate maintenance log in its ticketing system. During reconciliation, an analyst finds 412 assets in the register but only 388 matching records in the ticketing system. Of the 24 unmatched, 15 appear to be decommissioned vehicles still listed as active, 6 are new trailers added last quarter with no tickets yet, and 3 have serial numbers that differ by a single transposed digit between systems. The analyst's supervisor wants to close the gap by deleting the 24 unmatched register rows before the quarterly audit, arguing that 'the ticketing system is the source of truth because technicians actually use it.' The audit is in nine days and the analyst has no authority to change either system.
1. Identify the data-quality issues present and explain why deleting the 24 rows would be an unsound resolution.
Read the worked answer
There are three distinct issue classes, and they need different treatments:
- Stale records (15) - lifecycle/status error. The vehicles were decommissioned but the register status was never updated. This is a process gap (no decommissioning trigger), not a data-entry error.
- Legitimate timing gap (6) - new trailers with no tickets are expected, not an error. Deleting them would erase real, active assets from the register.
- Key-matching error (3) - transposed serial digits indicate an identifier integrity problem. These are almost certainly the same physical assets recorded twice with a typo, so they are duplicates in disguise, not true orphans.
Deleting all 24 conflates these categories. It would remove 6 real assets and 3 real assets whose records merely disagree, leaving the register understating the fleet. It also destroys the evidence needed to fix the root cause, and it makes the register look reconciled without being correct - which is worse for an audit than an honest, documented variance. The supervisor's 'source of truth' argument is also circular: the ticketing system cannot be authoritative for assets that have never generated a ticket. Authority should be assigned per attribute, not per system.
2. Propose a defensible course of action the analyst can take in nine days without system-change authority.
Read the worked answer
The analyst should produce a documented reconciliation rather than a silent correction:
- Classify, don't delete. Build a variance schedule with the 24 records split into the three categories above, each with the evidence (decommission dates, acquisition dates, serial comparison).
- Resolve the 3 serial mismatches first, since they are cheap to confirm (physical inspection or VIN check) and likely collapse the count.
- Escalate the 15 stale records to whoever owns asset lifecycle, requesting formal decommissioning entries with dates - an authorized action, not the analyst's.
- Flag the 6 new trailers as expected timing differences with a note that they should reconcile next quarter.
- Record the root causes (missing decommission workflow, no identifier validation on entry) as findings, and recommend controls.
The key move is converting an unexplained gap into an explained and owned one. An auditor accepts a documented, categorized variance with a remediation plan; an auditor does not accept a register that was edited to match another system without authorization or traceability.