A finished ACC-337 Topic 8 reproducible analysis workpaper example, documenting a warranty-cost analysis from raw extract to output so a colleague can rerun it, with the rerun and its one discrepancy recorded. Searches like "acc 337 topic 8 assignment example", "acc337 topic 8 sample" and "acc-337 topic 8 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-337 Topic 8 reproducible analysis workpaper looks like
The finished workpaper begins where the analysis began, with the raw extract: 31,400 claims totaling $4,210,000, pulled from the service system on a stated date. Every change after that is a numbered step with its count and dollar effect. Test claims entered by the training team come out, 380 of them and $52,000. Open claims are excluded as a scope decision, 1,020 and $168,000, since their cost is not yet final. Claims dated after the period end are removed, 212 and $31,000, leaving 29,788 claims and $3,959,000. A crosswalk maps fourteen retired model codes to their replacements. The query is included with its parameter values, and the output table states the figures it should reproduce. A final section records the colleague's rerun, which first came out 212 claims high.
How an ACC-337 Topic 8 example is structured
The workpaper is laid out in the order a second analyst would need it. A first section states the question, which models account for most warranty cost in the fiscal year, and the decision it supports. The source is identified next: system, table, extract date, the person who ran it and the raw row count and dollar total. Every preparation step is then listed in the order performed, each with its rule, its reason and its effect on counts and dollars, so the running totals can be checked line by line. The model code crosswalk has its own table after that. The query and its parameters appear exactly as run, with the software version noted. The expected outputs follow as target figures. The workpaper finishes with the reproduction test, the gap it found and the correction made.
Question and decision stated first
The workpaper names what it set out to answer and who will use the answer, so a reviewer can tell whether each later step served that purpose.
Source identified to the day
System, table, extract date and the person who ran it are recorded, because rerunning against a later extract would produce different figures for legitimate reasons.
Scope decisions labeled as decisions
Excluding open claims is recorded as a choice with a reason, separate from error corrections, since another analyst might reasonably have chosen otherwise.
Expected outputs written down
The 29,788 claims and $3,959,000 appear as target figures, which turns the reproduction test into a comparison rather than an impression.
The rerun and its gap recorded
A colleague's first attempt came out 212 claims high, and the missing date filter behind that gap is now a numbered step in the log.
Where marks go in ACC-337 Topic 8
An analysis whose documentation stops at the final chart is the characteristic loss on this assignment, because nobody can rebuild the figures from it. Workpapers that describe preparation in general terms, such as removing bad records, give a colleague nothing precise enough to repeat. Mixing scope decisions with error corrections hides the judgment calls a reviewer most needs to see, and excluding open claims is exactly such a call. Omitting the extract date leaves a rerun on newer data looking like a failure when it is not. Documents that never state expected outputs cannot be tested, only read. The most telling gap is a filter applied by hand in a spreadsheet and never written down, which is why an actual rerun by someone else is worth more than any amount of careful description.
Get an ACC-337 Topic 8 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-337 Topic 8 instructions, your classroom rubric and a description of the analysis your section is documenting. You receive a custom example written to those criteria, with the source identified, every step numbered with counts and dollars, scope choices separated from corrections, target outputs stated and a reproduction test recorded, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free of charge.
ACC-337 Topic 8 questions, answered
Who should perform the reproduction test?
Somebody other than the writer, working only from the workpaper and the raw file. The author knows every unrecorded step and will repeat them without noticing, which is precisely what the test is meant to catch. In a course setting a classmate or a study partner can do it, and where the assignment is individual, a rerun a few days later from the document alone is a reasonable substitute.
Does the query itself need to be included?
Yes, with every parameter value exactly as run, because a description of a query and the query itself can quietly differ. Note the tool and its version as well, since functions sometimes behave differently between releases. A reader who does not use the same tool still benefits, because the logic of the filters and joins can be followed and rebuilt elsewhere.
What if the rerun matches on the first attempt?
Record that it matched and what was compared, the counts and totals at each stage as well as the final output. A match on the final figures alone could conceal two errors that offset, so stage-by-stage agreement is the stronger evidence. The workpaper should also say who ran the test and when, since a claim of reproducibility with no test behind it is only a description.