chore: improve executive objective report (#39490)

Author: Copilot

.github/workflows/objective-impact-report.lock.yml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 emoji: 📊
-description: Impact efficiency report from workflow outcomes and linked objectives.
+description: Executive impact efficiency report from workflow outcomes tied to tracked objectives.
 on:
   workflow_dispatch:
 permissions:
@@ -19,9 +19,9 @@ safe-outputs:
 
 ## Goal
 
-POC: Test whether Impact Efficiency is a more meaningful signal than accepted outcome counts alone.
+Produce a comprehensive executive report on what work was performed, what AIC tokens were spent on, and which outcomes delivered the highest impact. The report must clearly answer: *What did we build, fix, and ship — and was it worth the cost?*
 
-Focus only on **pull request outcomes** and **safe output outcomes** (issues created or closed via the safe-output mechanism). Other outcome types are excluded from this POC because their acceptance criteria are not yet well-defined and most remain pending.
+Focus only on **pull request outcomes** and **safe output outcomes** (issues created or closed via the safe-output mechanism). Other outcome types are excluded because their acceptance criteria are not yet well-defined and most remain pending.
 
 Use this model:
 
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ If a run's `aic` field is missing or null, treat it as `0` and count it as missi
 
 Analyze only the following outcome types from the last 180 days:
 
-- **Pull request outcomes**: PRs created by GitHub Agentic Workflow runs. Accepted = merged. Rejected = closed without merge. Skip open (pending) PRs.
+- **Pull request outcomes**: PRs created by GitHub Agentic Workflow runs **that have a linked closing issue** (`Closes #N`). Accepted = merged. Rejected = closed without merge. Skip open (pending) PRs. **Exclude entirely** any PR without a traceable linked issue — do not fall back to PR labels.
 - **Safe output outcomes**: issues created or closed by workflow runs via the safe-output mechanism. Accepted = issue successfully created/closed. Skip any with unresolved state.
 
 Exclude all other outcome types (direct issue outcomes, comments, discussions, etc.). These are omitted because their acceptance criteria are incomplete and most are left pending, which would distort the metric.
@@ -91,11 +91,11 @@ If a traced root object has no labels that exist in the mapping, mark the outcom
 
 For each in-scope outcome, follow the implemented root-tracing behavior:
 
-1. For pull-request outcomes, trace the PR to its linked closing issue and use that root issue's labels.
-2. If PR root tracing fails, use labels on the PR itself.
+1. For pull-request outcomes, trace the PR to its linked closing issue (`Closes #N`) and use that root issue's labels.
+2. If PR root tracing fails (no linked closing issue found), **exclude the PR from analysis entirely**. Do not fall back to PR labels. Count it in the "PRs excluded (no linked issue)" total.
 3. For safe-output issue outcomes, use labels on the safe-output issue itself.
 4. Record the traced root URL when one is found so the report preserves an audit trail.
-5. If no mapped objective labels can be found, mark the outcome as `unmapped`, exclude it from `Σ Outcome Value`, and report it separately.
+5. If no mapped objective labels can be found after tracing, mark the outcome as `unmapped`, exclude it from `Σ Outcome Value`, and report it separately.
 
 ## Computation
 
@@ -141,27 +141,54 @@ Impact Efficiency Report - YYYY-MM-DD
 
 The report must include:
 
+### Executive Summary
+
+Write 2–4 sentences that directly answer: *What did we work on, what was the highest-impact work, and how efficiently were AIC tokens spent?* Highlight the most impactful objective categories and call out any significant gaps (e.g., large AIC spend with no mapped objective value).
+
 ### Summary
 
-- PR outcomes analyzed (merged / closed / excluded open)
+| Metric | PRs | Safe-output Issues | Combined |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+
+Include:
+
+- PRs analyzed with linked issue (merged / closed / excluded open)
+- PRs excluded (no linked closing issue)
 - Safe output outcomes analyzed
-- Objectives mapped
+- Outcomes mapped to objectives
 - Unmapped outcomes
 - Accepted outcome count
 - Total outcome value
 - AI Credits
 - Impact Efficiency
 
+### What We Worked On
+
+Group all **accepted, mapped** outcomes by objective category (the highest-value objective label from the mapping). For each category, list:
+
+- Objective category name and its mapping value
+- Number of accepted outcomes in this category
+- Total outcome value contributed
+- AIC consumed by outcomes in this category
+- Impact Efficiency for this category (total outcome value / AIC consumed)
+- Representative examples (up to 3 linked outcomes)
+
+Sort categories by total outcome value descending. Also call out separately which category consumed the **most AIC** (highest denominator cost), so readers can see where budget was spent regardless of value delivered.
+
 ### Top outcomes by outcome value
 
-| Outcome | Type | Associated objective | Objective Value | Outcome Value |
+| Outcome | Type | Root / Associated Objective | Objective Value | Outcome Value |
 |---|---|---|---:|---:|
 
+List the top 15 outcomes with highest Outcome Value. Include a link to the PR or issue.
+
 ### Unmapped outcomes
 
 | Outcome | Type | Reason objective was not mapped |
 |---|---|---|
 
+Only include outcomes that were in scope (linked-issue PRs and safe-output issues) but had no matching label in the objective mapping. Do not include PRs that were excluded for lacking a linked issue — those are already counted in "PRs excluded".
+
 ### Interpretation
 
 Compare:
@@ -171,11 +198,13 @@ Compare:
 
 Explain which one better reflects meaningful delivered value relative to cost.
 
+Call out the most significant finding: which objective category delivered the most value per AIC? Which categories consumed AIC with little or no mapped value?
+
 ### Data quality
 
 Mention missing or weak links in:
 
-- PR root tracing and linked-closing-issue coverage
+- PR root tracing and linked-closing-issue coverage (count of PRs excluded for lacking a linked issue)
 - safe-output issue label mapping coverage in `.github/objective-mapping.json`
 - AI Credits availability