Commission fuel BI that distinguishes partial fills, corrected odometer readings and operating conditions before comparing vehicle averages.
Index
Fuel purchased does not always equal consumption on a trip. Partially filled tanks and odometer corrections can create misleading averages.
What the quote needs to include
Classify full and partial fills, retain original readings and compare compatible operations. Missing information must appear as a stated limitation.
The indicator flags investigation needs; it does not prove fraud or individual misconduct.
Before commissioning prediction or rankings, verify that fills and readings actually belong to the same asset. Card changes, auxiliary tanks and instrument repair require explicit handling. Ask for volume, distance and evidence to remain available for review. Comparable averages require agreed rules on route, load and operating conditions; grouping by month is insufficient. Also test a reading below the previous one and a receipt entered late. Owners should understand why an interval was excluded. If capture still mixes vehicles, correcting identity and entry practices is the first delivery, rather than adding artificial intelligence. Avoid using operational flags as findings against drivers without further investigation.
Specific acceptance criteria
- Keep correction dates and reasons inspectable.
- Compare vehicles within operational context.
- Classify insufficient intervals as inconclusive.
The exception that determines acceptance
A partial fill receives a top-up without another trip. Testing must prevent artificial consumption and explain why the resulting average is not comparable.
Reference for assessing scope
Official Power BI modeling guidance
Prepare your project with Quantum9
Discuss this scope with Quantum9 and bring an anonymized sample for discovery.