Skip to main content
DOBE

Customer & sales

Two reports. Ready to check.

The same weekly sales numbers, in the two versions the business actually uses.

Customer-reviewed proof
Both reports reviewed by the customer; small revisions requested.

See how it works
Conceptual illustration of two sales report sheets with distinct chart layouts beside a laptop

Workflow illustration · Data Workflow

The job

Same business.
A better way through it.

Before

The customer reported spending 60–90 minutes every Monday preparing the two weekly sales reports.

What DOBE built

DOBE used the business's reporting requirements to prepare both weekly report versions for customer review.

Watch the work move

From input to outcome.

Play the four-step explanation, or choose a step. This illustrates the workflow; it is not a recording of a live run.

Conceptual illustration of two sales report sheets with distinct chart layouts beside a laptop

Workflow illustration

Follow the job

Start with your work.

Sales records and the rules for two weekly report versions

See every step
  1. 01

    Establish the reporting period, source records, and the two required versions.

  2. 02

    Apply the business's sales grouping and reporting requirements.

  3. 03

    Prepare a version including in-house accounts and a version excluding them.

  4. 04

    Present both reports to the customer for comparison with the expected output.

  5. 05

    Record requested adjustments before treating the result as a finished recurring service.

The result

Finished work.
Something you can check.

2

report versions reviewed

Owner-confirmed customer review of the complete pair, recorded September 14, 2026.

60–90 min

reported manual workload

The customer's estimate for both reports each Monday. This is the starting workload, not measured time saved.

What came out

Both report versions were produced and reviewed in person. Tanner's September 14, 2026 account of the review records a very close result with one or two requested tweaks.

The original AI run duration has not been recovered, and completion of those final tweaks is not established. No achieved time-saving percentage or unattended reporting schedule is claimed.

Why it matters

This is a familiar recurring job with a specific finish line: the two reports the business needs, ready to check.

The evidence, scope, and details

What was verified

Customer-reviewed proof · Both reports reviewed by the customer; small revisions requested.

  • Two report versions produced and customer-reviewed, as confirmed by Tanner
  • The pair includes and excludes in-house accounts
  • 60–90-minute weekly manual burden reported in the original customer meeting
  • Small requested revisions remain part of the documented review

Tools: Sales records · AI MacBook · Report preparation · Customer review

What supports this story

The original July 20 customer meeting describes the weekly reporting job and its manual time estimate. Tanner's September 14 follow-up confirms that both AI-prepared reports had been reviewed by the customer.

The review outcome is owner-confirmed. This page does not present an independently timed final acceptance test.

What would complete the time comparison

Time the same report pair from the agreed source inputs through an accepted result, including the necessary review and corrections. Compare that with the same manual job.

A follow-up-email timer or database-import timer cannot stand in for this reporting job.

Your job could be next

Still rebuilding the same reports every week?

Bring a redacted source file and the two or three outputs you need. We can map the repeated work and define what a correct report looks like.