# Reconcile conflicting LinkedIn analytics numbers across tools

Original constructed exercises; no actual account, reader or customer results.

## Work through three different outcomes

R1 — Constructed time-scope case: the same post has 800 current lifetime impressions in source A and 500 impressions attributed to October in source B. The source labels and saved date filters confirm those different bases. Outcome: no comparable 300-impression error has been established. Use 800 only for the captured lifetime statement and 500 only for the supported October statement; do not average them to 650.

R2 — Constructed missing-value case: A contains an observed zero, while B contains a blank and says collection unavailable. Outcome: preserve 0 and unavailable separately. There is no pair of numeric observations to compare. The next step is to check B’s required source access, not to fill its blank with zero or exclude the post without recording why.

R3 — Constructed unresolved case: the saved account, original post, metric definition, distribution, grain, time basis and capture time all match, yet A has 1,250 and B has 1,100. Outcome: preserve both values and mark the discrepancy unresolved. The arithmetic difference is 150; it does not identify which source is correct. Hold the precise comparative claim and retain the minimal case for an authorized support review if needed.