The artifact

A redacted sample of the Gap Audit Report.

This is the deliverable you keep, not a teaser. Below is a redacted sample from a real engagement: the coverage gap, the likely cause, the verification trail, and the methodology, all traceable so you can re-run the comparison against your own delivery. Client identity, source URLs, and exact counts are removed.

Request your Gap Audit → Download as PDF
Dataweav.
Gap Audit Report
Redacted · Sample
Prepared for
Source auditedNationwide provider directory
Audit window10 business days

Engagement

Client
IndustryHealthcare provider directory
Scope in-scope networks
Comparison basisLike-for-like, in-scope

Headline finding

+79,000 records missing
The vendor's most recent monthly delivery was short by 79,000 in-scope providers (+6.5%) versus an independent re-run of the same source, like-for-like.

Coverage comparison

Records in vendor's last delivery1,212,000
Records in our independent run1,291,000
In-scope records missing+79,000 · +6.5%
Out-of-scope records excluded from comparison
Likely cause traversal depth

Verification trail

Dropped-record check (every prior-cycle record reconciled)Pass · full reconcile
Sampling methodLLM-assisted, targeted
Records re-checked at source
Row-level appendixIncluded · rows

Every figure in this report is traceable to the row-level appendix, so the comparison can be re-run and verified independently against the client's own delivery.

Row-level appendix (excerpt)

VendorDataweavSource URLField issueWhy it counts
MissingPresentProvider omittedLive, in-scope, matches schema
PresentPresentIdentifier missingHidden ID found in page source
PresentExcludedOut of scopeOut-of-state / duplicate — not counted

Source URLs and identifiers are redacted in this sample. In your report, every row carries the live URL so you can re-check it.

How the audit was run

Step 01 · Re-run
Independent scrape of the live source

The same URL list and instructions, scraped from scratch on our own infrastructure. We never rely on the vendor's pipeline or output.

Step 02 · Diff
Head-to-head comparison

Record by record and field by field against the vendor's last delivery: records present in one and absent in the other, fields populated vs empty, values that disagree.

Step 03 · QA
Dual-layer quality check

A dropped-record check accounts for every record that should exist at source, plus LLM-assisted sampling concentrated on the records most likely to be wrong.

Step 04 · Fair test
Like-for-like discipline

In-scope compared against in-scope only. Out-of-scope records the vendor returned are excluded, not counted in our favor. De-duplicated, scope-matched, same time window.

What this means

At the time of audit, roughly 6.5% of in-scope providers were absent from the vendor's monthly delivery, with no signal in the delivery itself that anything was missing. The gap pattern recurred across comparable state directories. Recommended next step: .

Redacted sample. Figures are drawn from a real engagement; client identity, source URLs, exact counts, and method detail have been removed. This page is illustrative of the Gap Audit deliverable, not a live client report.

Next step

Want a report like this on your data?

We run one of your scrapes independently and hand you the findings to verify yourself. Free, ten business days.

Request your Gap Audit →