Every total traced to every place it appears: PUBH 9102's reconciliation pass example for Week 10 finds where a repeat-violation write-up's numbers disagree, and why. Searches like "pubh 9102 week 10 assignment example", "pubh9102 week 10 sample" and "pubh 9102 week 10 example" land here.
What a finished PUBH 9102 Week 10 reconciliation pass looks like
A register of numbers forms the document. Each reported quantity, analytic establishments, inspection pairs, pairs with a repeat, inspectors interviewed and the like, gets one row, with columns for every location it appears and the value shown there, all placeholders. Matching rows are marked and set aside. Mismatched rows receive a cause and a correction: one table was built from an earlier extract before a late batch of records arrived; a percentage in the text used establishments as its base while the table beside it used pairs; the methods counted an inspector who later withdrew. A source-of-truth column names the single file each value must now come from. Changed sentences and captions close the register, with a note that the abstract will be regenerated from corrected values instead of edited by hand.
How a PUBH 9102 Week 10 example is structured
A register keyed by quantity rather than by location is the organizing choice, because a mismatch only shows when every appearance of one number sits in the same row. Placeholders keep the illustration honest while showing the mechanics. A cause is recorded for every mismatch, since correcting a number without knowing why it diverged invites the same error elsewhere; the earlier extract, for instance, may have fed more than one table. The source-of-truth column settles authority, so future edits change the file and the document together. Denominator mismatches get particular attention, because they are the case where both numbers are correct and the sentence is still wrong. Regenerating the abstract from corrected values reflects the fact that summaries are where stale numbers survive longest.
One row per quantity
Every appearance of each number side by side, so disagreement shows at a glance.
Causes, not just corrections
An older extract, a switched denominator, a withdrawn participant still counted.
Source of truth
The single file each value must come from once the pass is done.
Where stale numbers hide
Abstract and captions flagged; the abstract rebuilt from corrected values, not patched.
Where marks go in PUBH 9102 Week 10
Mismatches found and explained earn the most. A pass reporting that all numbers agree is possible, but faculty tend to test that claim by picking two tables at random, and a mismatch found that way undoes the whole pass. Organizing by quantity earns credit by putting every comparison in view. Recording causes carries a large share: knowing an older extract fed one table points to other places the same error may sit. The denominator case draws particular credit, since it requires reading sentences, not only numbers. Naming a source of truth is rewarded for preventing recurrence. The abstract decision adds a smaller portion. A pass forfeits credit by correcting the text to match a table without checking which is right, by reconciling percentages without their bases, or by overlooking the abstract.
Get a PUBH 9102 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Share the full write-up, abstract, tables, figures and appendices included, with the Week 10 prompt and rubric. Every reported number is registered by quantity across all its locations, each mismatch traced to a cause and a source-of-truth file named. First pass free, turned around in 24 to 48 hours; the extract versions and tallies are stand-ins.
PUBH 9102 Week 10 questions, answered
Which number wins when two disagree?
Neither, until you know why they differ. Trace both to the files that produced them and decide which file is correct, then correct every appearance from that file. Changing the text to match a table, or the reverse, without that check risks fixing the wrong one and leaving the real error in place.
Do percentages need reconciling separately?
Yes, and with their denominators. A percentage can be arithmetically right and still disagree with a neighboring table because the base differs, such as establishments in one place and inspection pairs in another. Check that every percentage states or implies its base and that the base matches the count shown nearby.
How do I stop mismatches recurring after revision?
Tie every reported number to one source file and regenerate, rather than retype, whenever the data change. Where your tools allow it, produce tables directly from the analysis. When values must be typed, keep the register and rerun it after any change to the data, especially close to submission.