> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.textql.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Module 4 · Track A: Explore & Reconcile

> 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 … (~25 min)

## 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.

<Frame caption="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.">
  <img src="https://textqllabs.github.io/workshops/build-your-ontology/assets/byo-m4-graph.png" alt="The ontology graph" />
</Frame>

## 4.2 · Reconcile a conflicting metric — the key moment

```text Prompt theme={null}
Two teams define this metric differently (for example, a stricter vs. broader window, or a prorated vs. full-count denominator). Inspect the data, recommend one governed definition, author it as a .tql surface, and record the decision — and the rejected alternative — in a notes file. Keep the alternative available under a separate, clearly-named metric.
```

<Check>
  **You'll see:** Ana identify the discrepancy, propose one definition, and produce a reviewable change. The rejected alternative stays available — renamed, not erased.
</Check>

<Warning>
  **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.
</Warning>

<Note>
  **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.
</Note>

### ✅ 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