Extract Ballot Tallies From Voting Report

Skill: Extract Ballot Tallies from Voting Report

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the voting report as the primary source of truth for ballot extraction, but cross-check against any attached exhibits, notices, objections, or court orders that affect whether a ballot is counted.
• First enumerate each voting class or claimant pool in scope, then process each class separately; do not merge classes or infer class-wide results from a subset.
• If only one class exists, say so explicitly and explain why no cross-class comparison is needed.
• Confirm whether the report contains ballots that are timely, late, duplicate, designated, provisional, partially completed, insider, or otherwise challenged before tabulating results.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Agent produces a summary table without reconciling the ballot population against excluded and non-voting holders for each class.
• Agent records counts but omits irregular ballots, the reason each ballot is treated as irregular, and the legal basis for inclusion, exclusion, or provisional treatment.
• Agent fails to verify whether the reported tallies mathematically tie to the underlying ballot detail and class totals.
• Agent gives one global acceptance result instead of determining acceptance independently for each class under the applicable voting standard.
• Agent omits scenario testing for alternative treatments of irregular ballots, so the spreadsheet does not show whether class outcomes change under different assumptions.
• Agent states a conclusion that a class accepts or rejects without identifying the governing rule that supports that conclusion.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Apply the governing plan-voting or solicitation standard to each class independently; acceptance is class-specific unless the source documents expressly provide otherwise.
• Use the plan, disclosure statement, voting procedures, court order, and any applicable confirmation-order or solicitation-order language as the controlling authorities for whether a ballot counts.
• Designated ballots excluded by court order or ballot instruction are not included in the acceptance calculation; record the designation basis and the consequence for the tally.
• Late ballots are generally excluded unless the governing order or procedures provide a basis to count them; identify the controlling provision before including any late vote.
• Duplicate ballots require identification of the controlling ballot under the governing procedures; log the duplicate and state which ballot governs.
• Provisional, contingent, or disputed claims may require separate treatment; identify whether the vote is counted, counted provisionally, or excluded under the governing authority.
• Insider or affiliated ballots may require separate analysis under the voting rules or confirmation framework; test a scenario that isolates their effect when relevant.
• For each class, reconcile total allowed claims, counted ballots, excluded ballots, and non-voting holders to the class total reflected in the report.
• For rejecting or deemed-rejecting classes, identify the downstream confirmation implication tied to class-level acceptance under the governing bankruptcy framework.
• Cite the controlling authority for each legal proposition in the spreadsheet notes or narrative cell: identify the plan provision, court order, rule, or other authority that supports the treatment.

4. Analytical scaffolds

• Build the workbook from the report in a source-first sequence: extract the raw ballot data, normalize class labels, reconcile totals, then compute class-level summaries.
• For each class, calculate and verify:
  • total allowed claims amount
  • total holders
  • accepting ballots by count and amount
  • rejecting ballots by count and amount
  • excluded ballots by count and amount
  • non-voting holders by count and amount
  • acceptance percentages by count and by amount
  • stated result and whether the threshold is met
• Do not hardcode assumptions when a field is ambiguous; instead, flag the ambiguity and carry it into the irregularities or notes section.
• If the report provides multiple tallies or footed tables, reconcile them against each other before populating the summary tab.
• Treat every discrepancy as a separate item: identify the affected class, the source figures, the mismatch, the likely cause, and the corrective treatment.
• For each irregular ballot, record enough detail to permit traceability back to the source report without reproducing unnecessary narrative.
• Where the report uses alternative treatment rules, model the baseline and the alternative scenario side by side so changes in class outcome are visible.
• If a scenario does not change the class outcome, state that explicitly rather than leaving the tab blank.
• If a scenario is not applicable to a class, mark it as not applicable with the reason.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Preserve the hierarchy from debtor or plan class to individual ballot to irregularity and then to scenario treatment.
• Keep summary-level results tied to the class, while detail-level entries stay tied to a specific ballot, creditor, or claim.
• Where the report contains date-sensitive voting information, distinguish timely, late, and otherwise time-qualified ballots in the detail tab.
• Where a ballot is designated, excluded, or treated provisionally after a later order or instruction, reflect the temporal basis for that treatment.
• If a ballot is corrected, superseded, or duplicated, retain the sequence of events so the spreadsheet shows which submission controlled at each point.
• Ensure the sensitivity tab compares like with like: same class, same underlying allowed claim base, different treatment assumption.

6. Output structure conventions

• Output a spreadsheet named ballot-tabulation-summary.xlsx.
• Use industry-conventional tabs rather than a rubric-like checklist; include a primary summary tab, a ballot-level detail tab, an irregularities tab, and a scenario/sensitivity tab.
• The summary tab should present one row per class with the class-level totals, percentages, result, threshold status, and a concise note field for key reconciliation points.
• The detail tab should present one row per ballot or voting record with creditor or holder name, class, claim amount, vote direction, timing status, counted/excluded/provisional status, and any designation or exclusion reason.
• The irregularities tab should present one row per issue with a short description, affected record, amount, controlling authority, treatment taken, and any discrepancy noted.
• The sensitivity tab should present alternate treatment assumptions and the resulting class outcome, with enough context to show whether the result changes.
• Include a short notes or commentary area in the workbook for the governing authority, assumptions used for ambiguous entries, and any class-level confirmation implications for rejecting classes.
• Where a discrepancy exists, flag it plainly in the workbook rather than burying it in prose; the reader should be able to identify mismatches from the spreadsheet alone.
• Before finishing, verify that the workbook is populated, internally consistent, and saved under the required filename.