Audit of some of this week's Navigator files
I must admit that AI is like a box of chocolates
Once again, I audited excerpts of the Navigator output generated by two leading AI platforms I use. I submitted the same prompt and manifests and CSV data files. I would be doing this if I were back in my auditing days at PwC and KPMG. Being transparent I want you to see how reliable these reports are. Once again SuperGrok (Option A) was a massive failure. But this time, Claude also had issues.
I also tried OpenAI (chatGPT) free chat and it said it had the report but would deliver it to me 23 hours later. With AI, you do get what you pay for! It may be like Forrest Gump’s mom told him, but at least you get something. Unfortunately with SuperGrok, it’s not very tasty!
From this point on is the unedited audit file from Gemini:
Based on my audit of both reports against your Master Prompt and the provided CSV data, here is a detailed comparison.
Direct Answer: Both reports contain significant errors, but Option A is unequivocally the less valuable report.
While Option B has a critical data-parsing error, Option A fails on a more fundamental level: it cannot perform basic calculations or apply logical rules correctly. Its analysis is built on a foundation of incorrect data, making it misleading and entirely unreliable for a fiduciary.
High-Level Audit Summary
Audit PointOption AOption BManifest Scope
Failure. Only processed Manifest 4A 1; ignored 4B2.
Partial Failure. Processed 4A & 4B 3333but used the wrong data for R234.
Data Integrity (Calculations)
Critical Failure. Fails basic MIN/MAX checks5. Systemically miscalculates mean scores6.
Pass (mostly). Correctly calculates performance 7and mean scores 8 for data it did parse.
Analytical Logic (Rules)
Critical Failure. Fails to apply Decision Matrix 99and Anomaly Detection rules 10 correctly.
Pass. Correctly applies the Decision Matrix logic 11.
Formatting & Structure
Pass (mostly). Follows titling 12and footer rules 13but mislabels the final summary14.
Failure. Invents new titles 15and omits the final manifest summary16.
Overall ValueNone. (Harmful). Provides confidently incorrect analysis based on bad math.Low. (Flawed). Analytically sound but untrustworthy due to a critical data-slicing error.
Audit Report: Option A (Errors)
Option A is the less valuable report because it is systemically flawed. It demonstrates an inability to follow core instructions related to data integrity and analysis.
Failure 1: Gross Calculation Errors (R13)
Performance Table: The report fails a simple
MINIMUMfunction check17. For R13, it identifies the “Bottom Performer” for 1-Year as The Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLE) at -2.86%18. This is incorrect. The CSV data clearly shows The Materials Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLB) was lower at -4.93%.Mean Scores: All of the “Mean Technical Scores” for R13 are wrong19.
AT Mean: Report says -19.27. Correct answer is -15.0.
ST Mean: Report says -17.27. Correct answer is -14.0.
INSTAT Mean: Report says -31.00. Correct answer is -20.8.
This demonstrates a fundamental failure to execute the “INSTAT Analysis” (Step 4) 20and “Performance Scanning” (Step 2) 21 mandates.
Failure 2: Critical Logic Errors (Decision Matrix)
The report fails to correctly apply the “Decision Matrix” rules from Step 5 22.
Example 1 (XLV): It classifies The Health Care Select Sector SPDR® Fund (XLV) as “bearish”23. The data for XLV is AT: -23, ST: 5, IN: 50, INSTAT: 32. The “Bearish” rule requires INSTAT < 024. Since INSTAT is 32, this is a “Mixed signal” and should be Neutral25.
Example 2 (XLC): It classifies The Communication Services Select Sector... (XLC) as “bearish”26. The data for XLC is AT: -25. This explicitly triggers the “Strongly Bearish” rule ($AT \le -25$)27.
The core analytical output in section (c) is wrong.
Failure 3: Incomprehensible Anomaly Detection (R16)
The “Quantitative Anomalies” section (Step 3) 28 is a complete failure. For R16, it lists seven instruments with “Bearish Trend” anomalies29.
The rule for a Bearish Trend is
ST < -10, IN > 1030.Of the seven listed, only one (Caterpillar) actually meets this criteria. The report lists others like Lockheed Martin (LMT), which has ST: 25 / IN: -15, the exact opposite of the rule. This section is not just incorrect; it’s random.
Failure 4: Incomplete Scope
The report only processed Manifest 4A. It completely ignored Manifest 4B 31and then incorrectly summarized the job as “MANIFEST 4 complete”32.
Audit Report: Option B (Errors)
Option B’s analysis and calculations are significantly more accurate than Option A’s. However, it suffers from its own critical, deal-breaking error.
Failure 1: Critical Data Integrity Violation (R23)
This is the most severe error. The manifest file instructs R23 to process rows 75-82 from the CSV, which is a total of 8 instruments33.
Option B’s report for R23 states it analyzed 18 instruments34.
This means the report grabbed the wrong slice of data, processed it, and presented it as correct. This is a fatal breach of data integrity and violates Step 135. The entire R23 report is “garbage” as it’s not analyzing the correct dataset.
Failure 2: Structural & Formatting Violations
Incorrect Titling: The prompt requires the title
[R-File Name] (R-[Number])36. Option A followed this (”GICS Sectors (R13)”)37. Option B ignores this and invents its own titles, like “Energy Sector (R-13)” 38and “Industrial Sector (R-14)”39.Missing Summary: It fails to provide the required manifest completion summary at the end of the job40.
Conclusion & Recommendation
Option A is the less valuable report. Its output is unusable. It fails at basic math and “if-then” logic, which means you can never trust its analysis, even if it happened to parse the correct data.
Option B is also flawed, but its errors are different. Its core analytical engine (its ability to calculate means and apply the Decision Matrix) is functional and accurate. Its failure was in data parsing—it grabbed the wrong data for R23.
Both platforms produced unusable “garbage” in this audit. However, Option A is fundamentally broken in its analytical capability, whereas Option B is broken in its structural data handling.
Would you like me to perform a detailed audit of another R-File to see if these error patterns are consistent?