Multi-source collection, validation and comparison

Cyrus Consolidation Analyzer

Turn records from separate sources into a traceable comparison, while preserving disagreements, missing information and the evidence behind each result.

This engine organizes and validates existing information. It does not generate the same projections as the Insight Engine. Its current implementation uses specialized document parsers, a private staging service and a separately reviewed reporting board.

Applications Across Industries

Potential applications include supplier quote comparison, invoice-to-order reconciliation, inventory checks and recurring operations reports. For example, a purchasing workflow could extract supplier prices and delivery commitments, normalize units and currencies, flag missing terms, and route the comparison for human review.

AI-assisted extraction or summarization could be added for a suitable application, with validation and review. The current engine is not a universal AI connector: customer-specific adapters, schemas, access controls and rules would still be required.

Read the architecture and implementation on GitHub →

Worked example · NFL contest documents

Applying the Consolidation Analyzer to Westgate and Circa

This example compares selections recorded in two independent contests. It uses prior-week standings to identify the selected entries and the current contest documents to read their choices and lines. Its output is a comparison of those selections, not an independent prediction of player performance.

From source documents to a comparison

Westgate and Circa use different document layouts. The specialized intake parses leader aliases, matches their five selections and checks team and line mappings. The downstream board applies its approved cutoff and retains each contest's original lines rather than combining conflicting values into one number.

What this archived publication contains

The Week 6 publication selected three Westgate entries and four Circa entries using a top-three cutoff with whole tie groups. It therefore differs from later analyses that used a top-four-place leader pool. The tables retain the exact counts and denominators from this publication.

For example, Atlanta appears in two of three selected Westgate entries at +3 and one of four Circa entries at PK. This demonstrates both agreement counting and preservation of a source difference; it does not turn those fractions into win probabilities.

How exceptions are presented

The Thursday selections and early Houston game were already underway or completed when the snapshot was published. Those rows remain visible as evidence, with the original exclusion notes. Today every row is historical, so the entire board is explicitly labeled as an archive.

Contest board · Week 6 archive

This publication uses its original top-three cutoff, including ties. It is separate from later analyses using a different leader pool. Raw entry counts are shown without recommendation tiers.