Explain follower count changes in a client report
Report the start and end snapshots with their dates, then use only components your source actually provides to explain the difference. When the figures do not reconcile, record the gap and investigate; do not assign it to an algorithm or account-removal cause without evidence.
Your working document
Fictional reconciliation example
| Record | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Start snapshot | 1000 | Count at the chosen start time |
| End snapshot | 1100 | Count at the chosen end time |
| Net change | +100 | 1100 minus 1000 |
| Reported gains | 150 | Assumed available component under the example definition |
| Reported losses | 50 | Assumed matching component and window |
| Component net | +100 | 150 minus 50, matching the example snapshots |
Explain an unresolved difference
Check the time boundaries
Compare snapshot times with the component report's actual period and time zone. A different window can prevent reconciliation.
Check definitions and availability
Use the source's actual gain/loss definitions. An unavailable component should stay unavailable rather than being inferred from the net change.
Keep promotion records separate
A purchased delivery record and a public count snapshot are different evidence. Use the actual service order and settlement for that purchase's reconciliation.
State the remaining gap
Record the unexplained amount and the next check. A plausible cause is not a confirmed cause.
Avoid a misleading success claim
The example reconciles because its fictional components use matching definitions and times. Actual sources may provide different fields or observation windows. The report should preserve those limits.
Follower-count change is one observation. It does not establish engagement quality, enquiries or sales. Put business outcomes in their own defined records instead of using the follower delta as their substitute.