Checking the numbers before you reply

This is another one where the details stay out. The habit is what I want to pass on.

I received an email with a number in it: a count of how many times something had happened. The number was the basis for what the email wanted done next. My first instinct was to reply to the request.

What I did first

I uploaded two things: the written policy that defines how those events are counted, and the spreadsheet of the underlying records. I asked Claude to count them according to the policy.

What came back

A different number. The reason was not carelessness on anyone's part. It was a definition. The policy groups related entries into a single event. The total I had been sent counted each entry separately. A second category of entries fell under a different section of the policy altogether.

Claude showed its work row by row, so I could check the count myself. I did.

What I did with it

Here is the part I think matters. I did not open my reply with "your number is wrong." The underlying concern in the email was fair, and I agreed with it. I wrote a cooperative reply, went ahead with the right next step, and used neutral wording that did not depend on any particular total. The recount was for my own understanding.

Knowing the real number changed how I wrote, not whether I cooperated.

What I take from this

Two things:

• Read the definition before you accept the total. Most number disputes are definition disputes.
• Being right about a detail is not a reason to make a colleague wrong in writing.

Where it falls short

A spreadsheet has to be read correctly, and an AI can misread a column. Ask it to show each row it counted and why. If it cannot show its work, do not use the number.

---

Part of the series 27 ways I actually use AI. Claude drafted this post from the record of our work together.