Match Units and Coverage Before Adding Results
A consolidated report should say what the partners' evidence can support together. Adding every figure under a heading such as people reached may double-count the same people, mix contacts with individuals or combine different periods. A shared funder does not make measures comparable.
This original fictional packet concerns intermediary I and partners A/B. It contains no real personal records. Any real linkage or deduplication must use approved methods, necessary data and appropriate privacy controls; do not upload participant lists to an unapproved tool.
Read the Packet as Different Measurement Questions
| Record | Period and Unit | Figure | Combination Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | January-March, unique people using the defined service | 80 | Duplicates within A checked, not automatically across B |
| B1 | January-March, unique people using the same defined service | 70 | Duplicates within B checked; cross-partner overlap initially unknown |
| A2 | January-March, service contacts | 120 | Some people have repeated contacts; not a unique-person count |
| B2 | January-March, service contacts | 100 | Same contact definition confirmed for the exercise |
| B3 | April-May, unique people | 50 | Different period; overlap with January-March unknown |
Before an approved cross-partner check, 80 + 70 = 150 is a sum of partner-level unique counts, not a verified combined unique count. If the definitions match, combined January-March unique people could range from 80, if all B's 70 are among A's 80, to 150 if none overlap. This bound assumes these are the only two complete partner sets and the counts themselves are sound.
Incorporate a Verified Overlap Without Exposing Identities
Suppose an authorized, appropriately protected check confirms exactly 20 people occur in both January-March sets. The combined unique count is 80 + 70 - 20 = 130. Record the method, coverage, date and uncertainty with the authorized owner; a public report need not contain individual identities.
The exercise also supplies an authorized event-level reconciliation: A2 and B2 use the same contact definition and cover distinct service events, with no jointly delivered contact recorded in both sets. Under that supplied non-overlap evidence, the contact records add to 120 + 100 = 220 contacts. Without it, matching units alone would not justify that sum; check and remove duplicate events or retain separate partner totals. Report 130 unique people and 220 contacts as different measures. Neither establishes an improved outcome or proves that the service caused a change. B3's 50 cannot be added to 130 as five-month unique reach without checking repeat people and comparable coverage across the enlarged period.
Separate Co-Funding From Additional Delivery
In another part of the same fictional packet, one activity costs 20,000 units. Grant G1 funds 12,000 and G2 funds 8,000. The two funding reports may each describe their contribution under their terms. That does not create two activities or 40,000 of expenditure. Reconcile the cost owner, funding allocation and activity identity; explain co-funding rather than count the same activity twice in the consolidated total.
Do not derive proportional people reached by multiplying 130 by a funder's cost share unless a defensible measure and actual reporting requirement support that attribution. Money shares do not establish which participants or outcomes each contribution caused.
Write a Bounded Consolidated Passage
For January-March, the two partners recorded 220 comparable service contacts after an event-level check confirmed no contacts were counted by both. A protected cross-partner check identified 130 unique people, after removing 20 people counted by both partners. Partner B separately reports 50 unique people in April-May; combined unique reach over January-May is not established. The 20,000-unit co-funded activity is counted once, with 12,000 and 8,000 assigned to the respective funding sources. These records describe use and funding, not impact.
If overlap cannot be checked safely, retain partner-level figures and explain the limit. An honest unavailable combined total is better than a false precision. Reconcile later corrections through the original owners and update every affected table and summary.
Source and Scope
Pooled-fund quality features, Reporting, provides a UN inter-agency reporting example. The packet, set arithmetic and co-funding distinctions are original teaching material, not a prescribed fund metric or verified operational result.