Choose one of three approaches. The steps for that option appear below.
Choose an option above. On a phone, swipe the tabs left or right to see all options →
Claude reads the variance table and department notes, quotes each explanation verbatim, drafts commentary with consistency flags after heads confirm.
Get ready
Quote verbatim
Confirm the meaning
Draft with flags
Check and approve
Use: You
The variance table and the six departments' explanation notes.
Check the material is complete and you may upload it; keep the originals. Check your organisation's rules for restricted finance data before uploading it to any tool; this record does not establish that upload is permitted.
Use: Claude
Upload the variance table and department notes; ask for one row per variance line with the explanation quoted verbatim and the figure it relates to.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Structured explanation table with verbatim source text. For each variance line, find the explanation in the notes and give: line, variance, explanation quoted exactly, source note, and a short neutral paraphrase. If no note covers a line, say so. Do not add causes.
Use: The department heads
Each head reads their rows and confirms or corrects the representation; the meaning must be unchanged.
Each department head confirms the structured explanation keeps their meaning; condensation must not change the claim.
Use: Claude
Give Claude the confirmed table and ask whether each explanation fits the numbers and for draft commentary with a consistency flag per line.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft commentary per line with consistency flags. For each line, say whether the explanation is consistent with the budget, actual and variance figures. Flag inconsistencies without editing the explanation. Label every explanation as a department claim, not an agreed cause.
Use: The department heads
Read the draft, recompute cited figures and check each line against the variance table; approve only lines that fit, hold the rest.
Each line must fit the figures and what you said. Finance director reviews flagged explanations with departments before the pack is finalised.
The notes are notebook sources queried line by line, so each explanation returns with a quoted passage. You judge consistency.
Load the sources
Ask with citations
Recompute and write
Use: You
Save each note and the variance table as separate sources in one notebook.
Check every note is loaded and named before querying. Check your organisation's rules for restricted finance data before uploading it to any tool; this record does not establish that upload is permitted.
Use: Gemini Notebook
For each variance line, ask what the relevant department said about it, and copy the answer and its quoted citation into your table.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Explanation per line with citation to the source passage. What did the note from [department code] say about [line]? Answer only from the source and cite the passage. If nothing is said, say so.
Use: You
Recompute each variance, compare with the explanation, flag lines that do not match the numbers and write the draft commentary from confirmed rows.
Check each recomputed variance against the explanation and its quoted passage. Flagged lines go back to the departments before the pack is finalised.
Heads restate explanations into a template, so nothing is condensed by assistants first. ChatGPT checks fit against figures and drafts.
Prepare the template
Fill in the rows
Check and draft
Check and approve
Use: You
Have ready: the variance table and each department's explanation material. Prepare a template with one row per material variance line and blank columns per head.
Check every material line appears once.
Use: The department heads
Each head fills in the explanation in their own words with an evidence reference. Check Each head confirms it states their claim.
Use: ChatGPT
Upload the completed template and the variance table; ask for a per-line check of explanation against figures and draft commentary with flags.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft commentary with consistency flags and a table for row-by-row review. For each line, say whether the explanation fits the variance figure and flag mismatches without changing the explanation text. Label every explanation as a department claim.
Use: You
Read the draft commentary row by row and check each line against the variance figures and the department notes, then approve or hold.
Read the analysis code and assumptions first; approve only lines that fit the figures and the notes, hold the rest. Check your organisation's rules for restricted finance data before uploading it to any tool; this record does not establish that upload is permitted.
Best when: One assistant; heads confirm in the middle
What it does: Claude maps and drafts; heads confirm twice
Strong at: Structure confirmed before any commentary
Limit: Figure-checking quality not shown; recompute cites
Free plan: Yes
Best when: Every explanation traceable to a quoted passage
What it does: Notebook cites sources; you judge consistency
Strong at: Answers scoped to the uploaded sources
Limit: You build the table and commentary by hand
Free plan: Yes
Best when: Faithful wording; heads write it themselves
What it does: Heads write; ChatGPT checks and drafts
Strong at: Nothing condensed before the heads confirm
Limit: Each head fills in their own rows
Free plan: Yes, limited (uploads and analysis capped)
Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.
Deciding between ChatGPT and Claude for this? See the comparison.
Never paste credentials or full payment details.
Department heads confirm their explanations were represented faithfully.
Every explanation links to a figure and is labelled a department claim.
Inconsistencies are flagged, not edited away.
Recompute flagged variances before finalising the pack.
Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.