How to use a Righthand with Tally
Prepare a reviewed submission-identity and routing check from approved Tally inputs, with a worked example, complete brief, access checks, and reconciliation.
Quick answer
Use a Tally submission CSV to prepare an identity-and-routing check for the form owner. Keep multiple submissions from one respondent distinct and preserve the timestamp convention before assigning daily intake buckets.
Start with a submission-identity and routing check that the form owner can check against the original records. Righthand prepares the review artifact; the source application remains the operational record.
Establish the input route
Tally’s FAQ documents CSV download from the Submissions tab, distinguishes respondent and submission IDs, and notes timezone differences between dashboard display and integration exports. Official Tally reference, checked October 6, 2026.
Ask the owner to supply the approved CSV with its source route and timestamp convention. Retain submission identity where provided, and document the form and revision. Verify a connected operation separately; a spreadsheet sync in Tally does not establish a Righthand-native action.
Check the current integration directory and Righthand setup documentation. A listed app does not establish every read or write action. For a connected route, verify the assigned account, available operation, object scope, and one permitted sample read. This guide also works from an explicitly supplied, approved extract; it does not require an unverified native operation. Keep credentials out of the article brief.
Worked input and output
These three records are synthetic illustrations, not customer results or a hands-on integration test.
| Approved input | Proposed review output |
|---|---|
| TA41: respondent R1 has submissions S1 and S2 | Keep two submissions; flag repeated request for owner review |
| TA42: UTC timestamp falls on prior Pacific date | Apply stated review timezone while preserving original timestamp |
| TA43: routing answer missing in a partial record | Mark incomplete routing evidence, not an invented category |
The check should keep repeated submissions available for the owner to interpret. TA41 does not authorize deleting a supposed duplicate. TA42 should show both the original timestamp and derived review date so a reader can trace the boundary decision.
A complete first-run brief
Use an approved Tally response CSV and routing checklist for October 12–16, 2026. Fields: form reference, respondent reference, submission reference, submitted time, timezone convention, routing answer, revision. At Monday 9 AM America/Los_Angeles, prepare a submission-identity and routing check as source-linked Markdown in my private review thread. Preserve record identities and the extract timestamp. Group unresolved items by next action and responsible owner. Reviewer: form owner. Do not delete responses, contact respondents, change forms, infer sensitive attributes, or make participation decisions. Result check: Count submissions by their identities and compare derived daily buckets with the approved timestamp convention.
A permitted preparation step does not authorize a consequential write or an external send. Resolve proposed changes through the app's supported process after the responsible owner approves their exact scope.
Reconcile before widening the task
A respondent ID and a submission ID identify different things. Matching only the respondent can collapse a later correction into an earlier request. Also record whether the slice contains completed or partial responses; a partial export should not be presented as a complete intake population.
Trial the check across one midnight boundary in the supplied data. Have the form owner inspect TA42 and decide how repeated requests should be displayed. Only then reuse the same routing criteria for the next intake window.
For the first acceptance review, keep the original input slice beside the result and mark which items were checked. If access or evidence is incomplete, return that gap with its record identity rather than a confident completion statement. Review Pricing using the actual preparation workload and correction effort.