Skip to main content

​
4.1 · Explore what you built

Do: open the ontology graph and browse the file tree and a notes/*.md. Walk entities → metrics → lineage. This is your living model — readable files plus a graph, versioned and reviewable.
The ontology graph

The living model: a readable file tree, and every .tql inspectable — parameters, metrics, dimensions, and the exact table backings. The Graph tab is one click away.

​
4.2 · Reconcile a conflicting metric — the key moment

Prompt
You’ll see: Ana identify the discrepancy, propose one definition, and produce a reviewable change. The rejected alternative stays available — renamed, not erased.
When two SOURCES disagree — not just two definitions —Sometimes the conflict is upstream: a summarized table and the base tables tell different stories about the same question. Don’t let Ana pick on convenience — run the question against both, compare the results side by side, and let the SME who owns the data rule which is the source of truth. Then record the ruling — and the caveat about the losing source — in a notes file so it never gets re-litigated, and so Ana routes to the right table next time.
Why this matters —Every organization has a metric defined two ways. Governing it into one definition — with the decision recorded — is the moment the ontology stops being documentation and starts being the source of truth.

​
✅ Checkpoint

  • You walked entities → metrics → lineage in the ontology graph
  • A conflicting metric got one governed definition, with the decision recorded in notes/
  • The rejected alternative survives under a clearly-named separate metric