A shared review interface for recurring records, scheduled checks and potential gaps across separate workflows.
Outcome: Brought missing records and potential gaps into one place for review and follow-up.
Recurring records were held in separate tools. Reviewing them meant moving between sources and manually checking whether expected updates were present. A record could be missing without the absence being obvious in any individual report.
The useful question was therefore broader than what each source contained: which records needed attention, and where should a reviewer look next?
I designed a dashboard that brought the datasets into a shared monitoring view. SQL queries checked for missing records and surfaced potential exceptions, with BigQuery, Hex and Google Sheets Sync supporting the workflow.
The system connected three stages: collecting the source records, running scheduled checks, and presenting the results for review. This made the checking process repeatable while keeping the underlying records central to the investigation.
The dashboard gave reviewers a starting point for follow-up. Instead of reconciling every source before knowing where to focus, they could begin with a potential gap and inspect the relevant records.
A missing record and a confirmed failure are different things. An exception view is useful because it directs attention; interpreting the exception still requires context and review.
Teams could inspect potential gaps in one place and investigate them earlier. The benefit was a more organised review process with less manual reconciliation across separate systems.
This account generalises the original operational setting. The diagram shows the workflow rather than a production interface; internal record types, organisational structure and decision rules are omitted.