Three boards, three column names, one question nobody can answer.

The reason a team adopts monday is that anyone can build the board they need, and that is a genuine strength for running work.

It is a weakness the moment somebody asks a question that spans boards, because 'value', 'deal size' and 'contract' were defined independently by people solving different problems.

Reconciling them in an export is not a workaround; it is the only place the definitions can be compared side by side without rebuilding everybody's board.

The report ranks on one definition, stated once, which is what makes the answer defensible when a board owner disagrees with it.

It also makes the disagreements explicit, and those are usually worth fixing at the source afterwards.

Matching records across boards by an internal identifier breaks as soon as somebody duplicates an item or rebuilds a board.

A phone number and an email survive all of that, because they belong to the person rather than to the tool.

Normalisation runs first — country codes, punctuation, casing — and the report shows which key joined each row, so the match can be inspected rather than trusted.

That property is what lets this work across several boards, an old spreadsheet and a lead file from an advertising platform at the same time.

It is also why nothing here needs an integration, an API key or a developer.

Most boards have a source or channel column, filled in by whoever created the item, and it is exactly as reliable as that description suggests.

Joining leads to deals on the contact detail gives a second view of the same question, produced by a different mechanism.

Where the two agree, the column can be trusted. Where they disagree, the report shows the gap rather than silently preferring one.

In practice the disagreement clusters — one board, one team, one period — which usually points at a process change nobody documented.

Finding that is worth as much as the ranking itself.

An item moved to a won group carries whatever value somebody typed, at whatever moment they decided the deal was done.

Where the business invoices from another system, exporting revenue from there instead gives the collected figure and turns the deal value into a forecast again.

The gap between them is not distributed evenly across sources, and measuring it once tells you whether it is worth the second export permanently.

Where only the board figure exists, the report uses it and labels it as such rather than implying a precision the data does not have.