Why You Should Use Intelligent Reporting and Skip the Templates

When it comes to creating automated content, using a heavily templated approach is very enticing. It allows you to quickly set up new content and make sure that the final narratives very closely follow the outline that you set up. I call this a ‘Mad Libs’ approach, since it follows the same basic structure of the kids game, where the blank words in templates are filled in with specific details. Many companies in the Natural Language Generation space have made use of this approach, often thinly papering over their templates by adding a few basic options or paraphrases. 

Having watched this industry for over ten years, I’ve seen how a huge percentage of these projects (and the companies connected to them) have failed. So often, it is because template-based approaches have hidden problems that are not apparent to non-experts at first glance.

Before diving into those hidden problems, let’s first establish the alternative to templates- intelligent narratives. Rather than using templates, these narratives are built by: (1) going through data to figure out what the most interesting stories are, and then (2) allowing the most interesting stories to self-assemble into a well-structured narrative. This has the huge advantage of ensuring that all the most compelling content finds its way into the final narrative. While templates wedge the data into the narrative, intelligent reporting builds the narrative around the data. 

Sounds way better, right? But then why do some companies try the templated approach? That’s where template’s ‘hidden’ problems come into play. When comparing a single templated report with an intelligent narrative, the template will often not look that much different. In particular, the templated report will seem to do a good job hitting on the ‘main’ points (what was up, down, etc.).

The real problems happen over time, as people read more versions of the templated content and realize they are all fundamentally the same. This causes readers to (1) worry that they aren’t getting the full story, and (2) get tired of having to read through words just to get to the same pieces of data. 

Narratives Are Not Predictable

If you have a big data set, the number of possible interesting stories you could write about that data is nearly endless. Which stories will wind up being the most interesting (the ones you will include in your narrative) cannot possibly be known in advance. 

Take a football game, for example. Sure, the final score and the teams’ records are pretty much always going to be relevant, but beyond that, it’s chaos. You might have a game where there was a huge comeback, so the flow of scoring over the course of time is the key story. In another game, it was a blowout from the start and the key story is about a player’s stellar statistics. Or, the key story could be the revenge factor a team has after having been eliminated from the playoffs by their opponent in the previous year. I could go on, but you get the point- there is no way to write a template for all these possibilities.

Essentially, templates have to be built to talk about the types of things that always occur. One team wins; one team loses; the winning team’s record is now X; the losing team’s record is now Y; etc. However, it’s the things that rarely happen that are actually the most interesting to the reader. This goes for sports, sales figures, stock movements, you name it. Templates are therefore ironically built to show the exact information that is the least compelling to the reader. 

There's A Reason We Don't Like 'Robotic' Writing

On top of doubting that they are getting ‘the real story’, readers having to repeatedly slog through the same information in the same arrangement over and over again will soon be begging to just see the data! This is because the words in a templated report are not actually adding any real information compared to the way they are in a flexible, intelligent narrative. 

The idea that words are the key to helping people understand information stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of where the power of narratives comes from. There are two main advantages of a narrative when compared to raw numbers: (1) the ability to include or exclude certain information, and (2) the ability to arrange that information into main points, counter-points, and context. Wrapping words around the exact same set of data points in every report will not realize either of these advantages.

Fundamentally, good reporting is about synthesis, not language. In fact, intelligent reports can use very little language (as in infographics) and still convey a great deal of easy-to-digest information. Without intelligent synthesis, you are better off just giving readers the key pieces of data and letting them piece together the stories themselves. 

[Quick note: both this problem and the problem of missing key information are most applicable to situations where end users are reading multiple reports. It is possible you could have a use case where people are only going to read the templated report once. In my experience, however, that circumstance is rare due to the amount of work that needs to be done to set up automated reporting. You typically have to merge your data into the automated reporting system, set up the reports (which take a decent amount of time even if you are using a template), and then set up a distribution system. It’s rare for this procedure to pencil out in use cases that don’t involve readers encountering multiple reports, either because they are getting multiple reports over time (e.g. a weekly recap) or seeing reports on different subjects (e.g. reports on different sales team members).]

Starting Over Next Time

Given the large initial investment in data integration, companies are often interested in applying their automated reporting capability to new, related use cases. In this very likely circumstance, you are much better off having built out your content with flexible intelligence rather than templates.  Let’s examine why that is by looking at two different scenarios. 

In Scenario #1, you’ve invested in building out an intelligent Generative AI system that synthesizes your data and turns it into compelling, insightful reports. In Scenario #2, you took a shortcut and built out a template-based reporting system. The good news is that in both scenarios you will be able to quickly adapt your narrative generation technology to your new use case. 

The bad news, if you are in Scenario #2, is that your new reporting will have all the drawbacks that are inherent to a Mad Libs approach, since you will simply be building a brand new template from scratch. If you built an intelligent system, however, you would be able to apply the already-built intelligent components to the new use case. This reshuffling typically takes the same amount of time that it would take to build a template. Essentially, by building intelligence instead of templates, you can quickly expand quality content at the same rate that you can expand cookie-cutter templates.

In Conclusion

Investing in quality content is going to cost more than a templated approach, and the benefits will not be obvious at the beginning. Over time, however, templates provide little to no value, while intelligent reporting will prove its worth. Trust me on this one: leave the Mad Libs to the kids.

Ok, first things first- pivot tables most certainly DO WORK…at some things. This article is not about why pivot tables are useless, but rather about the ways that pivot tables fall short of solving the data analysis needs for many companies and use cases. I also explain the fundamental reasons WHY they fall short. I focus on pivot tables because they are probably the best tools that currently exist for most companies to run data analysis. If pivot tables can’t help you with your data analysis, then it’s probably the case that no software tools can (that you know of 😉).

How Pivot Tables Can Help

I come not to bury pivot tables, but to praise them. At least for a little bit.

Pivot tables are great at quickly surfacing the most important top-line numbers in your data. Let’s use, as an example, a retail company that has a record of every single sale they've made. They could store each sale as a row in a spreadsheet, showing the date of the sale, price, location, and a product class. 

If the company had a large number of sales then the spreadsheet would quickly get unwieldy. Summing up the total sales could be helpful, but what if you wanted to dive into a particular aspect of this sales data? A pivot table gives you that ability, allowing you to, for instance, isolate sales for a given month and then break down those sales by location. It might look something like this:

You could also choose to break down the sales numbers by product class, giving you something like this:

Pivot tables also allow you to change time periods, add new columns (like net profit, discount percent, etc.) and also easily turn these tables into charts and graphs. However, while a pivot table allows you to very easily see and visualize numbers, it only allows you to see that information along the dimension of your pivot table. So, if you are looking at the ‘location’ breakdown you can see the changes along that dimension. Same for the ‘product class’ breakdown. 

But what if the interesting information that you need is at the intersection of two different dimensions? For example, both the “Midwest” and “Shirts” could individually have the numbers shown above, while sales of “Shirts in the Midwest” are down significantly. You would not be able to see this by looking at either of these pivot tables. 

A quick-witted data analyst at this point will point to a flaw in my complaint- if the interesting movements in my example data are located at the intersection of the ‘location’ and ‘product class’ data, then a user could select both of those dimensions to create a new, more detailed pivot table. Something that looks like this: 

This table would continue on with information about the other two locations

But there are two problems with this solution. First, you have to proactively find the right set of intersections. As we will soon see, the number of possible combinations for most data sets is gigantic, so it may be difficult to find the key information if you don’t have significant time and/or expertise. Second, as you increase the amount of information in your pivot tables it becomes harder to actually digest it. In the examples above, we went from a very easy-to-read set of four items plus a total value, to a much harder to digest set of 16 sub-items, 4 items, and a total value. This could easily get out of control if we added a third dimension, and that’s before adding more metrics or KPIs as columns and/or having larger numbers of sub-components for each dimension.

It's More than Just Subjects

Hopefully you have a sense of how difficult it can be for pivot tables to deal with all the different ways that subjects and groups can be broken down. Unfortunately, that is only one small problem in the world of data analysis. There are five big dimensions to data analysis. Critically, each of these components is independent of each other, meaning that pivot tables, which start to get unwieldy when handling three dimensions of interaction, are utterly hopeless in helping users to understand interesting aspects of their data that might involve seven or more dimensions of interaction. The five main classes of dimensions (which each can contain many sub-dimensions) are:

Subject Groupings

The retail grouping example I used above is really an aspect of two different dimensions of analysis – parent grouping and children grouping. When examining data from a parent group perspective we look to see how it compares to other subjects in the same group (e.g. Midwest vs. East) or compare data to the average among all siblings (e.g. Midwest vs. All Locations). When looking at children groupings, we are looking to see which sub-components are driving the overall figures. As noted in our pivot table example above, this might involve diving into multiple dimensions (e.g. 'location' + 'product class') to determine the most relevant subject.


There are different ways to create data points using time periods (sales for the day, week, month, etc.). There are also different ways to contextualize data over time periods: we might look at how a metric has changed over time, whether it has trended up or down over a certain time period, or how it compares MTD to a similar period in the past. Both the way we create data and the way we compare it are independent dimensions (e.g. you can look at how data from this month [data creation period] compares to data from the same month last year [data comparison period]).


These are the actual figures you care about in your data, such as ‘total dollar sales’, ‘units’, ‘average price’, etc. There is some conceptual similarity between dealing with a group of metrics and dealing with a group of subjects. The key difference is that groups of subjects combine to form their parent (such as the sales for all ‘locations’ adding up to the total sales) whereas metrics are different aspects of the same subject. Pivot tables do a reasonably good job of handling this dimension, as you can typically express different metrics using columns instead of rows. Adding more than a few columns, however, can quickly overwhelm the end user, which is a problem because end users often have a large number of metrics that they potentially care about. The use of metrics is also complicated by the fact that many metrics have different aspects that function like new dimensions of analysis. For instance, you might have a total sales figure, but then there is also the change of that figure over time. 


These are the different types of ‘stories’ contained within your data that end users are concerned with. Stories like ‘X metric is trending up’ or ‘Y metric is now above 0 for the first time since Z date.’ Most end users have a list of hundreds of events they care about. Pivot tables typically do not even make an attempt to handle this aspect of analysis, leaving it up to the user to deduce these events from looking at the numbers. 


This dimension tries to break down data by what is actually the most valuable to the end user, which requires it to sit at the intersection of all the above dimensions. It needs to weigh the inherent interest level of a particular subject, each metric of that subject, each possible time period to analyze that metric over, and each event that metric could be involved in. On top of that, this dimension incorporates other elements, such as the volume of a given subject (compared to its sibling metrics) and whether a particular event is relevant given previous reporting.

Just how crazy difficult it is to navigate each of these dimensions while running data analysis is obscured by the brilliant human brain. Humans have the ability to map layers of meaning on top of each other and simultaneously calculate across multiple dimensions of analysis. We can then synthesize the most important information found at the intersection of all the dimensions listed above- either creating a narrative, giving a presentation, or creating a set of key charts and tables. Unfortunately, this process for human beings requires expertise and intuition as they wander down pathways in the data to find those nuggets of information. It also takes a great deal of time, costs a lot of money, and can never be as thorough as a computer. Pivot tables are really just a partial shortcut- allowing data analysts to skip a couple of dimensions of analysis but still requiring them to brute-force the rest. 

Time to Pivot from Pivot Tables

What if a computer could handle this task? You would then get the best of both worlds. Like a human being, it could flexibly run through multiple, independent dimensions of analysis and then synthesize its findings in a way that was easy to understand. Being a computer, it could also analyze information much more thoroughly, run its analysis very quickly, and be able to produce reports at incredible scale. infoSentience has actually created technology that can accomplish this. In brief, the key technology breakthrough is to (1) use conceptual automata designed to run an analysis for a particular dimension, (2) allow each automata to run independently, and (3) give them the intelligence to interact with the other conceptual automata so that they can come together to form a narrative. Keep following this space for more information on just how far reaching this breakthrough will be.

infoSentience's automated content today is the worst you will ever see it. That will be true if you are reading this article on the day I published it, and will also be true if you are reading it a year later. Why is that? Simple- every day, our content is doing one of two things: (1) staying the same, or (2) getting better. The ‘staying the same’ part is pretty straightforward, as our software will never get tired, make mistakes, need retraining, decide to change jobs, etc. On the other hand, we are constantly making improvements, and each of those improvements establishes a new ‘floor’ that will only get better. I call this the ‘improvement ratchet’ since it only moves in one direction- up! There are three key ways that automated content gets better over time: 

Improving Writing Quality

The most straightforward way that our automated content improves is by teaching our software how to write better for any particular use case. One way we learn is through feedback from our clients, as they see the written results and suggest changes or additional storylines. Another set of improvements comes from the iterative dance between the system output and our narrative engineers. When you give software the freedom and intelligence to mix content in new ways you sometimes come across a combination of information that you didn’t fully anticipate. For example, let’s look at this paragraph:

Syracuse has dominated St. Johns (winning 13 out of the last 17 contests) but we’ll soon see if history repeats itself. Syracuse and St. Johns will face off at Key Arena this Sunday at 7:00pm EST. St. Johns has had the upper hand against Syracuse recently, having won their last three games against the Orange. 

This paragraph works reasonably well, but the specific combination of the first and third stories aren’t tied together as well as they could be. In this case, the final sentence (about St. Johns dominating recently) would be improved by incorporating the information from the first sentence (about Syracuse having a big advantage overall). The updated version of the last sentence would read like this:

Despite Syracuse’s dominance overall, St. Johns has had the upper hand recently, having won their last three games against the Orange.

This improvement is an example of what we call an ‘Easter Egg’, where we add written intelligence that is targeted to an idiosyncratic combination of events. Our reports contain hundreds of possible events adding up to millions of possibilities. Adding intelligence to these events allows them to combine together properly and avoid repetition. However, there’s no way to build out specific language for all possible interesting combinations in advance. As we read actual examples we come across unique, interesting combinations. We can then add specific writer intelligence that covers these combinations to really make the reporting ‘pop’. 

Critically, this intelligence is usually a bit broader than just a simple phrase that appears in only one exact combination of events. In the example above, for instance, we would add intelligence that looks for the contrast between a team’s overall record against an opponent and their recent record and allow that intelligence to work in any such situation. We also need to make good use of our repetition system to make sure that all these Easter Eggs don’t start tripping over themselves by repeating information that was already referenced in the article.

Expanding the Content

Another way that content improves is by quickly expanding into similar use cases. For example, when we started with CBS we only provided weekly recaps for their fantasy baseball and football players. We soon  expanded to offering more fantasy content: weekly previews, draft reports, year-end recaps, and more. Because those were successful, they then asked us to provide previews and recaps of real-life football and basketball games. We quickly added soccer, and then expanded the range of content by also providing gambling-focused articles for each of those games. 

This same story has played out with many of our other clients. One of the big reasons for this is because automated content is so new that it’s often difficult to grasp just how many use cases it has. After seeing it in action, it’s much easier to imagine how it can help with new reporting tasks.

The other big reason that automated content often quickly expands is because the subsequent use cases are often cheaper to roll out due to economies of scale. There are three main steps to generating automated content:

  1. Gather data
  2. Create the content
  3. Deliver it

Each of these steps is usually much easier when rolling out follow-up content. In the case of Step #1, gathering data, it is sometimes the case that literally the exact same data can be used to generate new content. This happened when we expanded from general previews to gambling-focused previews for live sports games, which just emphasized different aspects of the data we were already pulling from CBS. Even if there are additional data streams to set up, it’s usually the case that we can still make use of the original data downloads as well, which typically reduces the amount of set up that needs to take place.

When it comes to Step #2, creating the content, infoSentience’s ‘concept based’ approach pays big dividends. Instead of creating Mad-Lib style templates, infoSentience imparts actual intelligence into its system. That allows the system to be flexible in how it identifies and writes about the most important information in a data set. It also means that it can quickly pivot with regard to things like: the subjects it writes about, the time periods it covers, the length of the articles, the way it adds visualizations, the format of the report, the importance of certain metrics and storylines, and many more. Entire new pieces of content can often be created just by turning an internal ‘dial’ to a new setting.

Finally, for Step #3, there is usually a tremendous amount of overlap when it comes to the delivery process for follow-up content. Typically, we will coordinate closely with our clients to set up an initial system for delivery. This might entail dropping our content into an API ‘box’ that our clients then access, but other times we send out emails ourselves or set up a web site to host the content. We might also set up a timing system to deliver content on demand or at particular intervals. It is often the case that these exact same procedures can be used for follow-up content. 

A great example of how all these steps came together is when we expanded to providing soccer content for CBS. In that case, the data pulldown and delivery procedures were identical, requiring no changes at all from CBS. While we did create some soccer-specific content, much of the sports intelligence for soccer was able to make use of the existing sports intelligence we had built into the system.

Better Audience Targeting

Finally, another way that automated content improves is from user feedback. Automated content allows for a level of A/B testing that would be impossible using any other method. I’ve already mentioned that our AI can change what it focuses on, its time periods, length, format, and more. It can also use different phrase options when talking about the same information, and even change the ‘tone’ that it uses. All of these options can be randomized (within bounds) when delivering content on a mass scale. It is a simple task to then cross-check user engagement with each of these variables to determine what the optimal settings are.

It's also possible to allow individual readers to customize their content however they want it. All of the ‘options’ mentioned above can be exposed to end users, allowing them to specify exactly what they want to see. This not only allows users themselves to improve the content they see, but also gives organizations a better understanding of the information that each of their customers really care about.


So much of our time in business and life is spent in a losing fight against entropy. Automated content provides a welcome break from that struggle. Set it up and enjoy great benefits from day one, knowing that the only changes that will ever take place are for the better.

[This post is the 2nd in a series of technical-focused articles exploring the challenges of using conceptual thinking to create written data analysis.]

Time is of the essence. This is true if you are in a hurry, but it’s also true if you are doing data analysis. Individual data values are almost always contextualized by looking at time-related events such as how much they have moved up or down, whether they are part of a trend, how high/low they are compared to past values, etc. Fortunately for human beings, manipulating time is something that comes easy to us. For example, if you know how to put together a monthly written report on a given topic, it would probably be quite obvious how to put together a weekly version of the same report.

For computers, however, this is not so easy, because they don’t think conceptually. Sure, software systems like Power BI and Tableau can show you the correct numbers for any given time period, but they don’t have the sophistication to think about any given time period, and this prevents them from giving you a time-flexible written synopsis.. Sophisticated, conceptual thinking is required because there are many (often subtle) difficulties when calculating and writing about time. In this post, I’m going to walk through some of those difficulties, and also show how a Conceptual Automata System (CAS) has the ability to navigate those difficulties.

Challenge #1 - What time periods are relevant?

Before trying to figure out how to manipulate time periods, a CAS needs to understand what time periods would even be relevant to a reader. For instance, an HR coordinator might be interested in a yearly high/low for a given metric, whereas a stock trader might be interested in the (slightly different) 52-week high/lows. A manufacturing VP, on the other hand, might care most about quarterly numbers, and so that would be set up as the default time period for their report. The best time period to contextualize information will almost always vary by use case. . 

Furthermore, the CAS has to take into account whether certain time periods are relevant to certain analytical events, such as streaks or outlier changes. For example, it might be interesting to note that a stock’s increase for the day was the highest in six months. It would not make sense to note that same story for a quarterly time period, since that might only represent two periods. That said, it would be equally invalid to require a 180 period gap between noting outlier quarterly events. Therefore, you need to have a sliding scale that allows longer time periods to need fewer intervals between outlier events. Many other stories would need similar intelligence to customize their thresholds based on the time period (and use case).

What even is 'yesterday'?

Challenge #2 - What to compare to?

One of the most complicated time-related issues is determining what comparison to make when calculating how much a metric has changed. In the simplest situation, you have a metric (let’s say it’s a monthly figure) and you would compare it to the previous month. But let’s say you have a very seasonal metric- in that case you might want to compare it to the same month of the previous year. 

This requires adding additional intelligence to each of your time-based ‘event’ stories. For instance, if you have a story about a metric increasing, that story cannot simply look to the previous item, but rather needs to seek guidance from its parent object to figure out what to compare it to. You also need to impart intelligence to stories such as trends or streaks to make sure they also are running year-over-year comparisons. Of course, all these changes also require alterations to how you would write about or visualize the stories.

Challenge #3 - Pure time periods versus current time periods

If, on September 15th, somebody tells you that a given metric is ‘down for the month’, what exactly does that mean? It could either mean that the metric is down through the first 15 days of the month, or it could mean that it has been down since August 15th. Both forms of measurement have applications, and often different use cases will favor one or the other. Stock traders, for instance, would likely care much more about the change over the previous 30 days, whereas a manufacturer might care more about how the current month has been trending. To be truly flexible, a CAS needs to be able to handle both these use cases, or even switch between both of them within the same report. 

Challenge #4 - Aggregated vs. simple time periods

There are two different ways that smaller time periods can relate to larger time periods—as waypoints or as components. Compare a month’s worth of stock data versus a month’s worth of retail data. To answer the question ‘how did Apple stock change this month’ we would compare the first day of the month to the last day of the month. If we were asking the same question of a set of retail data, we would need to add all the days in the month and then compare the aggregate of all those data points to the aggregate of the previous month. 

Dealing with aggregated objects is tricky because it is usually impractical to simply aggregate and sequence every possible time period in a data set, so you might start off by just creating, for example, a monthly aggregate of the overall information. But what if a user (or the CAS) wants to look at a subset of the data, such as a region in a set of retail data? The CAS must be able to generate an aggregated time object for each region. The only way to do that is to impart ‘self-assembly’ intelligence to each aggregated object, so that it knows how to take each component (such as each day of data) and merge them together to create a composite object that covers the entire time period.

Putting it all together

As complicated as some of these issues are, the real difficulty stems from the fact that each of the solutions to these problems needs to work independently. For example, let’s say you tasked the CAS with building a report on retail numbers for April 15th. The CAS would need to: (1) understand that a month-to-date report is more appropriate than a past 30 day report, (2) be able to automatically build an object composed of data from the first 15 days of April, (3) sequence that object along with all other ‘first 15 days’ objects (and their sub-components), (4) understand that the relevant comparison for this April’s partial month numbers is to the partial month of April of the previous year, and (5) be able to write and visualize the results of its analysis.

Not only must all of the time-based intelligence work well together, but you can’t limp over the finish line with a bunch of spaghetti code to make it work. This is because the ‘time’ dimension is just one of a whole series of independent dimensions that you need to get working, such as different subjects (or groups of subjects), metrics, user preferences, content length, formatting, visualizing, and others.

The good news is that once you get all of this working, you’ve unlocked the ability to quickly understand exactly what you need to know about any time period within your data. The CAS can even do things like give you a ‘last 4 days’ report when you come back from vacation. It can also use its fluidity in moving up and down time periods to easily add context to a report- contextualizing an annual report with how things have gone in the last month, for example. True flexibility over different time periods is a data analysis superpower that previously only humans had, but no longer.

Although Generative AI is making headlines every day, it is still a new concept to most people. Furthermore, Data Generative AI (DGA) is even less well known, so many of the people I talk to struggle to understand when it makes sense to make use of it. In this post, I’ll give  a quick synopsis of what DGA is, then walk through some requirements you’ll need to have in order to implement it.

What is Data Generative AI?

Many people have recently become aware of the power of generative AI by looking at Chat-GPT. This is a system that has been trained using large language sets and can create written responses to written queries. DGA, in contrast, creates written reports out of large data sets. It analyzes the data, figures out what is most important/interesting and writes out its analysis in an easy-to-read narrative. In essence, Chat-GPT and other Large Language Models (LLMs) go from language 🡪 language, while DGA systems go from data 🡪 language. 

In theory, this opens up all data sets to automatic AI analysis and reporting. In practice, there are technical and economic reasons that the current use of DGA can only be applied to certain kinds of data sets.

The five things you’ll need to make use of DGA are:

  1. Accessible Data
  2. Structured Data
  3. Complicated Input
  4. Complicated Output
  5. Significant Scale

Accessible Data

The first step that a DGA system takes when building a report is to ingest data. Since one of the main goals of using DGA is to automate reporting processes, it figures that the process of ingesting data has to be completely automatic as well. This means that you’ll need to have some way of automatically delivering your data to a DGA system. Typically, this means setting up an API with a private authentication key to allow the DGA to pull down data. However, there are other methods as well, such as sharing a flat file or giving access to an online spreadsheet such as Google Sheets or Office 365. If security is a concern, it could even be possible to build the DGA system using a sample data set and then transfer the program onto your servers so it could run without the data ever leaving your organization.

The good news is that while you might need to create a new access point for your data, you will rarely need to change the format or structure of how your data is stored. This is because all of the data coming into a DGA system needs to be manually placed into a conceptual hierarchy. This process takes the same amount of time whether you have one API with all of your information in JSON format, or 10 different data silos with a mix of formats. In fact, one of the great benefits of DGA is the ability to pull in information from anywhere and make it all understandable and accessible. 

Structured Data

Accessing the data is only part of the equation, however. The other key requirement is that the critical data you want to analyze is ‘structured’ data. Determining what counts as ‘structured’ data is a bit tricky, so let’s go over an example. Here is a simple spreadsheet of stock data: 

In this example, “Closing Price” is a perfectly structured piece of data. It has a clearly definable metric (Closing Price) that is represented by a number. This makes it really easy for DGA systems to work with it. Slightly less structured is the data in the “Industry” column. In this case, you have a text value that corresponds to all possible industries. Whether a variable like this would be considered structured or not typically comes down to: (1) how it will be used, and (2) how many different text options exist. If it is just as simple as having the system assign an ‘industry’ value to each company and group it with other companies that have that same industry, then this can be pretty easy. But imagine if there were 100 different industry types. In that case, you might want to assign each company a higher-level organizational value (like a ‘sector’) that comprises many industries. This might need to be set up manually as part of the data ingestion process. Furthermore, if you have many possible text values it’s likely that some of them might need spelling or grammar intelligence attached to them (such as whether they are singular or plural). 

Looking at the "Name" column, we see an example of text-based information that is minimally structured for data purposes, but can be effectively used for labeling. You can’t use this text to derive substantive information about the company, but you can simply insert it into the narrative. Again, there might be complications with data like this because of grammatical issues.

Finally, we get to the ‘Notes’ column. Sentence and paragraph length text is the least structured data. Of course, the ability of AI to structure text is improving all the time. Things like sentiment analysis or word clouds can be effective ways to structure that data and integrate it into the narrative. In general, though, DGAI is called Data Generative AI for a reason, and so if any critical information is found in long-form text it is probably not a great candidate to get automated. 

Complicated Input

You are generally going to need a lot of data to justify setting up a DGA system for the simple reason that if you don’t have a lot of information then you probably don’t need an automated system to analyze and synthesize it. Essentially, DGA is great at solving data-overwhelm, but that means you need an overwhelming amount of data.

Most of you reading this have probably already skipped to the next section, saying something along the lines of “yeah, having too little data is not my problem.” But, for those of you unsure if you have enough (and to get the wheels turning for the rest of you) it’s good to think about just how many different ways there are to have an ‘overwhelming’ amount of data. 

Having a long sequence of data over time can easily make for a difficult analysis, particularly if placing the values of the current time period (such as this month’s sales data) into historic context is important. Another way that complexity can occur is due to the interaction of groups. For instance, imagine a single retail sale that occurs. That sale occurred in a particular location (that might have many levels- city, state, country, etc.), for a particular product (that might have a color, style, category, department, etc.), and sold to a particular person (that might have demographic information, sales channel info, marketing tracking info, etc.). All of these individual pieces of information might have interesting interactions, and the number of possible combinations can add up quickly.

Complicated Output

While you might have a lot of data, there is also the question of what type of reporting you need to derive from that data? It’s possible to have a tremendous amount of data that can be crunched down to just a few key metrics. In that case, you need algorithms that look through the data and crunch the numbers, but you don’t need DGA. DGA is used for synthesis, in situations where there are lots of things that are potentially interesting, but you want a story about just the most important ones. 

Let’s illustrate this point using a football game. When the Dallas Cowboys play the New York Giants, a tremendous amount of data is generated. There is the play-by-play of the game, the total stats for each team, the total stats for each player, the history of the stats for each team and player, the upcoming schedule, the previous matchups between the two teams, and many more! Clearly, this amount of data satisfies the ‘complicated input’ requirement. 

But let’s say that you only care about one thing- ‘who won the game?’. In that case, you don’t need a synthesis from DGA, since even though there was a huge number of things that happened, they can all be boiled down to the final score. But what if your question is ‘what happened in the game?’ In that case, you need DGA to parachute in and examine thousands of possible storylines and organize and write up just the most important ones. DGA works great in situations where thousands of things could happen, hundreds of things did happen, but you just want to read about the 10-15 most important events. 

This example is also a good illustration of the importance of a narrative in telling a story. Modern dashboards are usually the equivalent of a ‘box score’ for a sporting event. It’s certainly interesting sometimes to go through a box score, but most people would much rather read a story about what happened in the game than read through the numbers and try to figure out what happened on their own. 


DGA has to ingest data from your unique data sources, organize it into a conceptual hierarchy, create compelling content from it, and then format and deliver that content to particular end points. Unfortunately, all this takes a decent amount of up-front effort. That means that DGA doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you have a lot of reports you need built. Exactly how many reports depends on the value of each one, but it would typically be at least 1,000 over the course of a year (numbers of 1,000,000+ per year are not uncommon). 

Often, people will ask me about automating a particularly onerous report within their organization that someone on their team has to put together every month. Unfortunately, if a report takes half of one employee’s time, that usually means that: (1) we’re not providing much value if we automate it, and (2) that report is really long and complicated, making it extra expensive to build out.

Instead, think about using DGA when you:

Or some combination of the three

You Can Do It!

Hopefully this guide gives you a good sense of exactly what you need to be a good candidate to apply DGA to your data sets. If your use case satisfies all five requirements then you can bask in the power of being able to create beautiful, insightful reports as often and at whatever scale you choose.

Just being honest, I sometimes suffer from engineering arrogance. I’ll look at software that another company has built and think “that’s not that hard.” Well, nothing close to that thought crossed my mind after playing around with ChatGPT. As someone who has spent the last 12 years working on Natural Language Generation (NLG) technologies, I found its writing capabilities astonishing. If there was an engineering Nobel Prize, the OpenAI team should win.

That said, ChatGPT has not (thankfully) actually achieved General Artificial Intelligence yet. There are several areas where it struggles compared to a smart human being, particularly when it comes to analyzing and reporting on numeric data sets. Conveniently for me, many of the areas where ChatGPT is weak are the same areas where the technology I have been working on is strong. In this post, I’m going to run through some of the weaknesses of ChatGPT when dealing with data, and also talk about an alternative software method that successfully deals with those challenges.

Problem #1: It's a Black Box that Makes Guesses

You want your reports to be accurate, and if they’re not accurate then you want to know why. Unfortunately, the technology underlying ChatGPT doesn’t allow for either consistent accuracy or easy debugging. While this is an oversimplification, ChatGPT essentially creates digital neurons that each try to understand some component of reading and writing text. When writing, these neurons collectively come up with a probability of which words to use at any given point in creating a written document. This means that if it is analyzing your data and writing a report, it might ‘guess’ wrong when trying to interpret or describe what’s going on. Small, subtle changes to the data could be enough to make it go down the wrong pathway. Unfortunately, reports that are 98% accurate are usually not good enough.

When ChatGPT does go wrong, the sheer complexity of its underlying technology makes it very hard to figure out why it failed. There are billions of neurons (175 billion in the case of ChatGPT4) involved in making ChatGPT run, and because they are potentially all involved in deciding each word in a report, there is no way to succinctly describe the path the computer took when it went from a blank page to a completed report. Asking ChatGPT to fully describe its thought process is akin to asking you how you processed the photons coming into your eyes. The mechanism is hopelessly opaque, even to the system that is doing the processing. 

Human thinking is different. We start with well-defined concepts (“up”, “week”, “revenue”) and then mix them together to form new concepts (“revenue was up for the week”). We can then manipulate these concepts using logical operations and continue to combine concepts into bigger structures (like complex thoughts or written paragraphs). Crucially, we can apply this process of conceptual thinking to our own thought process, giving us the ability to explain how we came to a conclusion. 

There is a way to mimic human-style thinking in software by using conceptual automata. These are pre-defined concepts that exist within an ontology and can be combined with each other to form larger concepts. Because they are not probabilistic, they always follow the same pathways when analyzing data, making sure that their final analysis is 100% accurate. Using sophisticated debugging tools, each of these pathways can be made visible to a narrative engineer, so they can very quickly determine exactly why any given sentence, phrase, or number appeared in a narrative. 

Problem #2: Struggling with Logical Operations

ChatGPT can play chess, despite having never seen a chess board. It’s actually not terrible, especially in the opening. While that certainly would make it seem like it can handle logical thinking, it’s really an illusion. ChatCPT is essentially a super-sophisticated auto-complete system. So, if you start off by asking the system for a chess move that comes after 1.e4, it might respond with 1.   e5.  That’s not because it understands the value of moving your pawn forward, but rather because it has read through the annotations of millions of chess games and knows that e5 often follows e4. 

For as long as you play ‘book moves’ (those typically played in a chess opening) ChatGPT will keep humming along great. But once you get to the ‘middle game’, where you are now playing a unique contest, ChatGPT will start to struggle. Sometimes, it will even suggest making an illegal move, like moving your own piece on top of another of your pieces. 

This is a problem when dealing with your data. While there are elements of your data that are not unique, the totality of information contained within your data sets creates a never-before-seen analysis question. Essentially, it’s one big ‘middle game’ in chess, where you can’t follow hard and fast rules anymore and instead have to rely on real logical thinking.

A Conceptual Automata System (CAS) solves this problem by incorporating logical operations directly into the foundation of the software. As I mentioned before, conceptual automata work by allowing multiple concepts to be combined into larger concepts. However, there really isn’t a bright line difference between what we might refer to as a ‘tangible’ concept, such as ‘revenue’ and a logical operation concept such as ‘last week’ or ‘double’. Therefore, when the CAS applies a logical transformation, such as changing ‘revenue’ to ‘revenue last week’, it simply creates a new concept that combines the tangible concept of revenue with the logical operation of moving the time period back one week. 

Human beings are proof that the potential ways of combining tangible and logical concepts together are near infinite, as we can offer an analysis of almost any situation. While a CAS is not currently as flexible in its domain knowledge as ChatGPT, within an area that it has expertise it can mix together concepts with human-like fluidity. Because it understands all of the sub-components involved in creating larger scale concepts, it maintains a fundamental understanding of its results, giving it the ability to then write about it intelligently.

Problem #3: Not Adapting to New Information

ChatGPT has gobbled up fantastic amounts of written material. In fact, ChatGPT has essentially ingested every piece of written material available on the internet, meaning every blog post, article, and Tweet, along with every book ever written. It needs that massive amount of scale precisely because it doesn’t think conceptually like human beings do. When we learn a new thing, we typically try to fit it into already existing concepts and then understand how the new thing is different. For example, if you had never heard of soccer but knew all about hockey, you would pretty quickly be able to understand the dynamics of the game by mapping the new soccer concepts on top of the ones you had for hockey. ChatGPT, on the other hand, derives something akin to a concept by looking at the interactions of massive amounts of information. These ‘quasi concepts’ can’t really be manipulated or merged with new information entering the system, as they can only be built by looking at an entire training set at one time.

It takes a long time to go through the entire history of written content, so ChatGPT is trained over a set time period (usually several months) and then its model is fixed from that point forward. It might seem like it is adapting or learning when you chat with it, but in fact it is merely responding to you by applying some already existing aspect of its model to what you are saying. It cannot create new concepts until the entire model is retrained. 

This is a problem, because one thing that it hasn’t ingested (hopefully) is your internal reporting, or the internal reporting of any of your competitors. This means ChatGPT would be approaching your data, and your reporting needs and preferences, from anew. It could try to apply already existing concepts it had derived to your data, but it wouldn’t be able to create any new conceptual information. It would therefore struggle to incorporate feedback from you as to what to look for in the data, how to weight the significance of different events, how to use jargon or unique metric names, and many other aspects to reporting on your data that require new knowledge. 

Not There Yet

ChatGPT is taking the world by storm, and for good reason. Its ability to understand written text and communicate on a human level is truly astounding, and marks a significant change in the history of human technology. That said, when it comes to writing reports based on data, it currently has the potential to make significant errors, is difficult to debug, struggles with logical operations, and has a hard time incorporating new information after it has been trained. Any of these by themselves would hamper ChatGPT’s ability to reliably analyze data and report on it. Taken collectively, they completely prevent ChatGPT from playing a significant role in automating data-based reporting in the near term.

In contrast, CAS can deliver 100% accuracy, is easy to debug, can handle all basic logical operations (changing time spans, creating sets, arithmetic, etc.), and can be fairly quickly trained to report on data of any kind. For now at least, this makes it the ideal solution for automated reporting. Given that CAS is strong where ChatGPT is weak and vice versa, could merging the two technologies provide an even more powerful solution, and perhaps even get us closer to General AI? My answer to the question is probably (!), so keep a look out for future blog posts on that topic.