Distributors, invoices and applied cash are joined twice, wrongly and then correctly, with the 116,150 gap decomposed before the fix, in this AC442 Unit 6 exercise. Searches like "ac 442 unit 6 assignment example", "ac442 unit 6 sample" and "ac442 unit 6 example" land here.
What a finished AC442 Unit 6 multi-table join exercise looks like
Four pages, with a reconciliation block at the center. The question comes first: for each of 46 distributors, how much was billed in fiscal 2025, how much has been collected and how much remains open. Version one joins DISTRIBUTOR to INVOICE to CASH_APPLICATION with inner joins and sums the invoice total, returning 1,131 rows and 1,168,510. The reconciliation block lists three causes. Unpaid invoices, 214 of them worth 196,420, vanish because they have no application. Credit memos, 38 worth negative 21,340, vanish for the same reason. And 61 invoices paid by two checks appear twice, adding 58,930. Version two aggregates applications per invoice in a derived table, then left joins it, returning 1,322 documents. Billed ties to 1,284,660 in the ledger, applied to 1,088,240 of posted receipts and open to the 196,420 receivables control.
How a AC442 Unit 6 example is structured
The wrong version stays on the page on purpose, because the unit grades the ability to recognize a bad join, and a sample showing only the final query hides that skill. Decomposition precedes correction: each of the three effects is measured separately, so the reader sees errors pushing in opposite directions and partly offsetting each other, which is why the wrong total looked plausible. The corrected query is then justified clause by clause, aggregating before joining so each invoice appears once, and using a left join so documents without cash survive. Three control totals close the piece, each named with its source, since one agreeing number could be coincidence while three agreeing numbers are evidence. Its closing paragraph admits what the query still cannot see, such as receipts never applied to any invoice, which sit in a separate unapplied cash balance.
One question, 46 distributors
Billed, collected and open amounts per distributor for fiscal 2025, stated before any table is touched so the output has a target.
A plausible wrong answer
Inner joins through the application table return 1,131 rows and a total close enough to the ledger that nobody would question it on sight.
Three effects, measured apart
Unpaid invoices and credit memos drop out while split payments double up, and each effect is sized so the three sum exactly to the gap.
Aggregate, then join
Applications collapse to one row per invoice in a derived table before a left join, so every document appears once whether paid or not.
Three totals that agree
Revenue, posted receipts and open receivables each tie to a named source outside the query, turning one match into corroborated evidence.
Where marks go in AC442 Unit 6
A join result presented without any reconciliation is the deduction graders apply most readily in Unit 6, because the exercise exists to show that a query can run cleanly and still be wrong. Correcting the double count while leaving the inner join in place is the common half-fix: the duplicates disappear, the unpaid invoices stay missing, and the total still disagrees. Explanations that blame a gap on rounding or timing, without measuring it, lose analysis credit. Credit memos are often forgotten, since they carry negative totals and rarely have cash of their own. Tying to one control figure alone, usually revenue, leaves collections and receivables untested. A corrected query nobody explains clause by clause reads as found rather than written, and graders commonly mark that down on method.
Get a AC442 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Share the tables your Unit 6 join problem names, the supplied database or file, and the rubric, including any control totals the instructor provides. The wrong version, the decomposition and the corrected query are all written against your data and delivered in 24-48h, and the first custom sample comes free.
AC442 Unit 6 questions, answered
Why show the wrong query at all?
Because recognizing a bad join is the skill being assessed. A reader who sees only the final query learns the syntax but not the warning signs: a row count higher than the document count, a total that disagrees with the ledger, a figure that moves when a table is added. Keeping version one visible shows those signs and how each was traced.
What does aggregating first accomplish?
It turns many application rows per invoice into one row per invoice before the join, so an invoice paid by two checks contributes its total once. Joining first and grouping afterward can work, but only if every sum is written carefully, and one careless SUM on the invoice total brings the double count back. Aggregating first removes that risk structurally.
Where do the control totals come from?
From outside the query. The distributor sales balance comes from the general ledger, posted receipts from the cash receipts journal, and open receivables from the subledger control account. Some AC442 prompts print them in the instructions; otherwise the sample computes each from its own source table and names where it came from, so a grader can check independently.