Month 6 · Organize records and duplicates
Four relative self-study weeks with fictional data and one monthly activity. Local organization only: no live databases, deletion, messages or guaranteed study duration.
This is the developed Month 6 learning resource, not the entire twelve-month course. The four exercises form one monthly activity M06. Reading, personal marks and self-scores do not verify academic completion.
Complete fictional source F6
Base F6 consists of these four rows. Row labels preserve traceability and are not request IDs. No quantity, amount, customer, owner or completion evidence is supplied.
| Source row | Request ID | Request | Original status |
|---|---|---|---|
| F6-1 | R01 | Notebook | Pending |
| F6-2 | R02 | Pencil | To review |
| F6-3 | R01 | Notebook | Pending |
| F6-4 | R03 | Product unspecified | Pending |
Complete separate test variant V6: V6-1 = R02, Pencil, Completed; V6-2 = R04, Notebook, Pending. These are hypothetical extra rows, not authorized updates. F6 has four rows/three IDs; F6+V6 has six rows/four IDs and an unresolved R02 status conflict.
Week 1 · Define records and identity
Goal: Organize requests without turning them into sales or people.
A record describes a case request, not proof of a sale, payment or delivery. F6 has four rows and three distinct identifiers. R01 appears twice with identical content. Repetition increases row count but not distinct request count. Define what each row represents and which field identifies the request before counting.
A stable identifier supports comparison without names, phone numbers or identity documents. R01, R02 and R03 are fictional codes. Similar descriptions are insufficient to merge records: different requests can concern the same item. Repeated IDs do not authorize deletion from a real database. Work on a local copy and preserve the source.
Prepare a dictionary first. ID is text, request describes the need, status identifies review state and evidence records its source. Never fill an unknown product with a guess. R03 has no supplied product; keeping that unknown visible is useful until an authorized clarification exists.
Case for review
Someone counts four rows as four sales and fills R03 with “folder” to avoid empty cells.
Your activity
Copy F6 unchanged. Define ID, request, status, evidence and next review. Count rows separately from distinct identifiers and explain why neither means sales.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
There are four rows and three distinct IDs: R01, R02 and R03. R01 repeats exactly. R03 remains product unspecified. No row proves a sale or payment. Preserve the source and create a separate working table with explicit unknowns.
Supporting artifact 1: dictionary and traceable F6 counts.
Week 2 · Detect duplicates without losing evidence
Goal: Distinguish exact repetition, conflict and similarity.
Compare IDs first, then relevant content. Matching ID, request and status can identify an exact duplicate within this exercise. Matching ID with changed content is a discrepancy requiring review. Similar content with a different ID should remain separate; resemblance does not establish identity.
Keep the original source. An organized table may show one row per ID and point to all source rows in a note. This is a local organization proposal, not a deletion instruction. Another person should reconstruct what was grouped and why without relying on your memory.
Test variant V6 does not replace F6. It adds R02 with status “completed” and a new R04 notebook request marked pending. The former conflicts with F6’s “to review”. R04 is new despite mentioning a notebook like R01. Never select the most favorable status automatically.
Case for review
A filter removes all similar notebook entries and accepts “completed” merely because it appears later.
Your activity
Compare R01 with its copy, R02 with V6, R01 with R04 and R03 with an absent value. State what stays and what requires a person’s review.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Repeated R01 is an exact duplicate: one request with two evidence rows. R02 is a status conflict, not automatically completed. R01 and R04 are distinct requests. R03 needs clarification. Combined F6+V6 contains six rows and four distinct IDs, not six sales.
Supporting artifact 2: comparison matrix and source-row traceability.
Week 3 · Statuses and next review
Goal: Organize work without implying actions already happened.
Statuses work when meanings are explicit. Here “pending” means review is still needed; “to review” requires checking the description before a next step. Neither means paid, delivered or resolved. You may propose a more consistent dictionary while preserving original values as evidence.
A next review is a proposed task. R01 could require clarifying the notebook request; R02 checking pencil information; R03 asking which product is needed. No real date or owner is provided. Write “owner to be assigned” rather than inventing a person or commitment.
Declare the observed set behind counts. Organized F6 has two pending requests and one to review, totaling three. Do not count the duplicate again. These small fictional counts establish no actual workload or productivity; there are no durations, amounts or outcomes.
Case for review
A report claims “four customers served, three orders ready” from the four original rows.
Your activity
Write a two-sentence summary with counts by status and limits. Add one proposed next review per ID and explain what evidence would be needed to call a request resolved.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Valid summary: “F6 has three distinct requests: two pending and one to review; one extra row exactly repeats R01. There is no evidence of service, sale, payment or resolution.” Resolution would require an authorized outcome and relevant record, neither supplied. Proposed tasks contact nobody.
Supporting artifact 3: ID-based table, statuses and proposed next steps.
Week 4 · Check and assemble M06
Goal: Deliver reproducible organization with corrections and limits.
Ask concrete questions. Can another person reconstruct all four source rows? Is R03 still unknown? Is the conflicting variant separated from the base? Do totals use IDs instead of rows? Correct failures before submission. A visually tidy table alone is insufficient evidence.
Keep changes reversible: intact F6, organized copy D1 and decision notes. Open no real databases and delete nothing. This material has no account synchronization or server storage. Saving a CSV locally does not mean APEX received or assessed your work.
Submit one monthly activity M06 with four supporting artifacts. Apply approved rubric v1: facts/sources, artifact/process, data/human review and reasoning/limits, each 0–2. Zero means absent or incorrect evidence, one partial and two sufficient justified evidence. Minimum 6/8 without zeros requires authorized human review, never automatic completion.
Case for review
A self-review says “8/8 because the table has three rows”, without explaining duplication or the V6 conflict.
Your activity
Attach F6, dictionary, matrix and organized table. Document at least two corrections and score each criterion with evidence. Keep F6 results separate from combined F6+V6 results.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Three rows alone are insufficient: explain four source rows, three IDs, the 2+1 status distribution and the preserved unknown. The variant has six rows/four IDs and an R02 conflict. A 2+2+1+1=6 self-score may be reviewed but is not approval; 2+2+2+0=6 fails the criterion. No statements, enrollment or benefits are issued.
Single M06 submission: ID organization, variant comparison, bounded summary and justified self-review.
Assemble your single monthly package
Download M06 package guide (TXT)
Keep your work locally. Formal review requires actual artifacts and an authorized human reviewer. No certificate, enrollment or benefit is issued by this page. The other eleven months and final portfolio remain separate parts of the annual program.
Optional AI tutor — read consent and limits first · My personal study marks, not academic verification