The hard part of data work is almost never the analysis. It's that the export dropped canceled orders without telling you, two dashboards define an active user differently, and the join silently duplicated a chunk of your rows.
So what helps isn't a tool that runs a regression. It's one that checks the file before it answers, tells you what it found, and shows its work on every number so you can reproduce it.
What Strawberry can help you do
Not sure where to start? Tell your companion what decision the number is for, and it'll suggest the right place to begin. See the skill
Get an answer out of what you have
The most valuable thing here usually isn't the analysis. It's catching the reason the analysis would have been wrong. So the file gets checked before anything is calculated, and you hear what turned up before you see a chart.
Then every figure that matters arrives with the filters applied, the rows excluded and why, and the formula behind it. What the data shows stays separate from what it implies.
Collect what doesn't exist yet
Sometimes the dataset you need isn't anywhere. It's spread across a few hundred pages that each hold one row of it. Strawberry works in the browser, so it can go and get those fields, validate them as it goes, and hand back a table with a source against each row.
Settle the definitions
Most arguments about numbers are really arguments about definitions. What counts as active. Whether the month is calendar or rolling. Which timezone the day ends in. Two tools can both be right and still disagree.
Because your companion works across the logged-in tools you already have open, it can compare how each one defines the same metric rather than taking one dashboard's word for it. That's usually where the discrepancy turns out to live.
Reconcile conflicting numbers
Work out why two sources disagree, and which definition should win.
Check the framework itself
Decide whether you are measuring the right things before optimising the numbers.
Show people what you found
An analysis nobody acts on may as well not have run. Once the findings are accepted, they can become a presentation that leads with the answer and keeps the evidence traceable underneath it.
Keep the room honest
Most analysis meets its real test in a meeting, where someone asks why this number disagrees with the one in their dashboard. Turning up with the definitions already reconciled is the difference between a review and an ambush.
Walk in with the numbers
The current figures, what moved since last time, and the questions people are likely to ask.
Capture what was decided
The decisions, the follow-up questions, and the analysis someone still owes.
Write the recurring update
A concise, accurate update for the people who need the numbers but were not in the room.
Stop rebuilding the same report
Recurring reports have a habit of drifting. The definitions move slightly, someone applies a different filter, and two quarters stop being comparable without anyone deciding that.
Once a report is right, the definitions, filters, quality checks, and output can be saved so next period runs the same way. If several people build versions of the same thing, that accepted method can be shared instead.
When it genuinely repeats on a schedule, it can become a Routine that pulls the data, runs the same checks, and brings you the result to review.