Check What an HR Software Export Actually Includes
A static review worksheet for evaluating one proposed report export — scope, filters, fields, format, and access — with a synthetic sample review and provider questions. Not a record migration, not an access change, and not an HR Co-Pilot feature.
Evaluate a sample export before you choose a provider
A proposed report export may include only selected records and fields. This worksheet reviews one sample, not all export types — check what the sample actually includes before relying on it: the category, the date and status filters, the fields, the format, and who can retrieve it.
This page is a starting point for reviewing one proposed export sample. It is not a record migration, not an access change, and not a product export feature of HR Co-Pilot. It gives no legal retention advice and no cancellation instructions.
You can copy the review fields labels below into your own document — there are no input fields and this worksheet has no data-entry controls.
- 1.Ask the provider for a synthetic sample with labels, not real data.
- 2.Record the exact filters and the required field list.
- 3.Confirm what lives outside the export separately.
- 4.Leave unresolved fields pending — do not infer absence.
Examples from official product pages
These are attributed descriptions of official product pages, not an independent test or a guarantee of current entitlements. Confirm the exact plan and contract before relying on any feature.
BambooHR describes report exports as CSV or Excel files that can show date and employee filters. Confirm the current product and contract for your plan; this is not a statement that every export includes every record.
Paychex describes report settings for date and filters and downloads in PDF or XLSX formats. This is a marketing description, not an independent test or a claim of a complete archive.
What to confirm in one proposed export sample
Each check names the evidence to request and an open question — not instructions to operate the software or transfer records.
Define the purpose and authorized owner
State the business reason for the export and name the role authorized to request and receive it. An export without a named owner is not a recordkeeping decision.
Evidence to request
A written purpose and the authorized role recorded in the review note.
Who is the authorized owner, and what decision is this export meant to support?
Record the included category, date, and status filters
Document which record category, date range, and status the sample used. The filters can affect the scope of the records returned — confirm the report definition, permissions, and any other limits with the provider before drawing a conclusion.
Evidence to request
The exact filters applied to the sample, written down before the review.
Which category, dates, and statuses did the sample include — and which did it exclude?
Confirm the required field list
List the fields the export must contain for the task. A missing field is unconfirmed, not a finding — ask the provider how the report definition and permissions shape the columns before drawing a conclusion.
Evidence to request
A required-field list checked against the columns in the sample.
Which required fields appear, and which are missing or blank?
Inspect the format and structure with a provider-arranged synthetic sample
Ask the provider to open a sample using synthetic labels in a test environment. Confirm the file type, column order, and whether the layout is readable for the intended reader.
Evidence to request
A synthetic sample opened with the provider, with labels rather than real employee data.
Is the format readable for the person who will use it, and what does the structure assume?
List attachments, history, and approval context to confirm separately
Note any attached documents, change history, or approval context the task needs. Ask the provider whether these are included in the export or available separately — their absence from a sample is not proof they do not exist.
Evidence to request
A list of attachments and history items to confirm, with their locations noted.
What context lives outside the export and needs a separate confirmation?
Verify authorized retrieval and readability
Confirm an authorized person can open the exported file in the approved system with the reader or tool intended for its format. A file that cannot be opened with the approved reader is not a usable record.
Evidence to request
An authorized reviewer opens the sample file with the approved reader and records that it is readable.
Can the authorized reader open and read the file in the approved system?
Record open items and the decision
Write down what remains unresolved and the next decision with an owner and date. A blank field is an open item, not a finding that the provider lacks the capability.
Evidence to request
An open-items list with an owner and a next-decision date.
What is unresolved, who owns it, and what is the next decision?
A written illustration, not an actual vendor file
The rows below are labels arranged for this exercise. They contain no real employee names, tax, bank, pay, or medical data. The scenario requests three orientation reference rows; the demonstrated sample shows two.
Contact role
[orientation lead]
Reference version
v1
Date
[demo date]
Note
Included in the demonstrated sample.
Contact role
[orientation lead]
Reference version
[not supplied]
Date
[demo date]
Note
Included in the demonstrated sample; reference version not supplied.
Reconciliation — expected 3, demonstrated 2
The review requested three orientation-reference rows. The demonstrated sample showed two rows (Sample-A and Sample-B) with the status filter set to active; the expected third row (Sample-C) was not shown. The scope and the blank reference version remain unconfirmed — ask the provider why Sample-C was not shown and whether the report scope, filters, or plan definition excluded it. Do not infer a provider failure from the missing row.
One entry per export being reviewed
The field labels below are selectable — copy them into a spreadsheet or document. There are no input fields and this worksheet has no data-entry controls. Leave fields pending until the authorized owner confirms them.
Export review entry
Purpose of the export
[Why this export is requested]
The business reason and the decision it supports.
Provider and plan
[Product, plan, or contract reference]
The exact plan or contract the export is evaluated under.
Authorized owner
[Role accountable for requesting and receiving the export]
The single role authorized to request and receive this export.
Synthetic label
[Label for the provider-arranged sample — not real employee data]
A label for the sample, not a real employee name or identifier.
Report and filter reference
[Report name, category, date range, and status filter used]
The exact filters the sample applied.
Expected fields
[Required fields the export must contain]
The field list the task needs, checked against the sample columns.
Sample observations
[What the reviewer observed in the synthetic sample]
Readability, missing fields, and structure — not a product verdict.
Missing-context question
[Attachments, history, or approval context to confirm separately]
What lives outside the export and needs a separate confirmation.
Readability check
[Who opened the file, where, and whether it was readable]
An authorized reviewer confirms the file opens and reads.
Next decision and date
[Open item, owner, and target date]
What remains unresolved, with an owner and a date.
A pending orientation-reference entry
The following describes an imaginary business. It contains no real employee data and no computed result. The entry stays pending until the scope, version, and third sample are confirmed.
Purpose of the export
Confirm an orientation-reference export for a quarterly review (fictional)
Provider and plan
Open: confirm the exact plan and contract with the provider
Authorized owner
People operations coordinator (fictional)
Synthetic label
Sample-A / Sample-B — provider-arranged labels, not real employees
Report and filter reference
Orientation reference, status filter set to active, date range [to confirm]
Expected fields
Open: required field list to be checked against the sample columns
Sample observations
Sample-A v1 and Sample-B shown; Sample-B reference version blank; the third row (Sample-C) not shown; readability still pending.
Missing-context question
Open: confirm whether attachments and approval history live outside the export
Readability check
Pending: authorized reviewer to open the sample file and record the result
Next decision and date
Pending until scope, the blank reference version, and the missing third row are confirmed
The useful outcome is an assigned open question with an owner — not a product verdict. A pending field is better than a guessed answer everyone assumes was checked.
Ask before relying on an export
These are questions to confirm with the provider — not instructions to transfer sensitive data, change access, or cancel a contract.
- 1Which attachments, change history, or approval context live outside the export and need a separate confirmation?
- 2Which date and status filters are available, and which did the sample apply?
- 3Can an authorized reviewer open the exported file in the approved system after the contract, if needed?
- 4What does the written quote and contract include for exports, formats, and retrieval?
- 5Who handles retrieval and authorized handling, and what is the appropriate qualified review for sensitive categories?
The AI HR assistant can help you talk through export-review questions in plain language, and the document generator can help draft a records-handling note as a starting point. You still confirm the scope, filters, fields, and access that apply to your business. This public worksheet is not an HR Co-Pilot export feature.
Related resources
Pair this checklist with the inventory and retention guides.
Export review, answered
Common questions about reviewing an HR software export. Need something else? Talk to our team.
This guide is general organizational information, not legal or tax advice. It does not certify compliance or replace a qualified employment attorney or tax adviser. State and local retention questions should be routed to an appropriately qualified person. Need help drafting an HR document? Explore HR Co-Pilot at app.hrco-pilot.com and review drafts before use.
HR clarity to your team today.
Ask everyday HR questions and draft a starting point to review with HR Co-Pilot.