I wrote the accuracy review. The script ran cleanly, and the closed months tie to the P&L.

**Result:** The 9+3 reforecast was the most accurate version for both revenue and operating expenses. Its revenue variance was $3K, or 0.02%, with a MAPE of 0.63%. MAPE is the average monthly miss as a share of actuals.

**Findings:**
- **Revenue was over-forecast in every version.** Budget was off by $362K, or 3.2%, and its worst month was 2025-07, forecast at $1.0M against an actual of $878K.
- **The 3+9 and 6+6 reforecasts didn't fix it.** Their bias stayed positive at 2.1% and 2.8%, which suggests the same optimistic assumption carried through. 6+6 missed 2025-09 by 15.0%, forecasting $1.2M against $1.0M. What 6+6 assumed for September is the open question.
- **9+3's accuracy comes mostly from its short horizon.** It had only three forecast months left, so its low MAPE doesn't show that the forecasting process improved.
- **Budget operating expenses were off by only ($649) for the year, or (0.03%).** That hid monthly misses that cancelled out. The MAPE was 4.1%, and 2025-05 was off by 15.7%.

Files are in `output/`:
- `accuracy-note.md`
- `accuracy.json`