FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY
Quirk foundCategory: Statistical · Last tested 2026-09-01
Real compatibility results for the FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY function: executed in Excel for the web, Google Sheets and LibreOffice Calc, with desktop Excel behavior from Microsoft’s official documentation (we do not run desktop Excel — Excel for the web is a different application and is executed separately). Syntax and links to that documentation are below.
Support matrix
| Engine | Documented | Live-tested | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excel (desktop) | Yes | No — documented only | n/a |
| Excel for the web | — | Yes (recalc, 2026-09-01) | Inconclusive (no verdict published) |
| Google Sheets | No | Yes (Drive import, 2026-08-31) | Unsupported (not recognized) |
| LibreOffice Calc | No | Yes (25.8.7.3, 2026-08-31) | Quirk found |
LibreOffice version history
We executed the same test cases under each LibreOffice release to show exactly when FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY’s support changed — not documentation claims, real results.
| LibreOffice version | Verdict | Tested |
|---|---|---|
| 24.2.0.3 | Quirk found | 2026-08-31 |
| 24.8.7.2 | Quirk found | 2026-08-31 |
| 25.2.0.3 | Quirk found | 2026-08-31 |
| 25.8.7.3 | Quirk found | 2026-08-31 |
Why isn't FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY working in LibreOffice?
FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY exists in LibreOffice 25.8.7.3, but it is not a drop-in match for
Excel — our executed tests found real behavioral differences (detailed in the test results on this
page). If a formula that works in Excel or Google Sheets misbehaves in LibreOffice, compare your usage
against the failing cases above before assuming your data is wrong.
Why isn’t FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY working in Google Sheets?
Google Sheets does not implement FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY: we imported the formula into
Sheets on 2026-08-31 and every case came back #NAME?
(unrecognized function). Sheets is a rolling service with no version to pin, so this is a
statement about the service on that date, and Google’s own
function list does not document it either. Rewrite the formula with a documented
Sheets equivalent — see the
Excel ↔ Sheets equivalents table.
#N/A for every case of the FORECAST.ETS family — the existence probes, the value assertions and the cases that expected #NUM! or #VALUE! alike, all from the same 20-point timeline that FORECAST and FORECAST.LINEAR compute correctly on in this very run. A single error returned uniformly across arguments, dataset and error class is not a family of calculation defects; it is the exponential-smoothing feature being absent from this application. The name resolves (an unrecognised name is #NAME? here), and the expected values come from Microsoft’s documentation of the desktop product, so the disagreement is between what the two applications ship. The executed values are published exactly as they came back and no verdict is drawn from them.
Every executed case is shown below with exactly what Excel for the web returned.
Discovered quirks
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,A1:A20) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is 4.
Provenance
Microsoft's page publishes no worked example (only a "Download a sample workbook" link), so this is asserted from the documented DEFINITION on a series constructed so that the definition has only one possible answer: "Returns the length of the repetitive pattern Excel detects for the specified time series." B1:B20 is 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times over a constant-step timeline -- a pattern of length 4 repeated exactly five times, with no other repetitive structure and no noise for a detector to trip over. Any implementation that detects a repetitive pattern at all must report 4 here; 2 does not fit (10, 20 then 30, 20 differ), and 20 is the whole series. This is the one FORECAST.ETS.* quantity in this batch that the algorithm's implementation freedom does not reach, which is exactly why it is the one asserted. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected 4, got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A20) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is 4.
Provenance
The companion to the clean case, and the reason both exist: a detector could pass the clean series by exact-matching repeated blocks. C1:C20 is the same 10, 20, 30, 20 pattern with the fixed residual sequence 0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... added, so no two cycles are identical yet the period is still unambiguously 4 (the residuals are small relative to the 20-unit swing of the pattern). HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected 4, got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,D1:D20) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is 4.
Provenance
Seasonality is documented as "the length of the repetitive pattern" -- a count of data points, not a distance along the timeline. Rescaling the timeline from 1, 2, 3 ... to 2, 4, 6 ... leaves the pattern four points long, so the answer must still be 4. This separates an implementation that counts points from one that has confused the period with the timeline step. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected 4, got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A10) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is #N/A.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If the ranges of the timeline and values aren't of same size, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #N/A error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #N/A. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch make the identical substitution on the identical input, so it is one behaviour in a shared argument-checking path rather than three separate slips.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#N/A', got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,E1:E20) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is #VALUE!.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If timeline contains duplicate values, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #VALUE! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT, AND THE MOST SERIOUS FINDING IN THIS BATCH: no LibreOffice build errors here at all. Instead of the documented #VALUE!, every build reports a seasonality of 4 -- the same answer it gives for the well-formed timeline, so the duplicate is simply absorbed. A duplicate timestamp is not a cosmetic input flaw -- it means one of the observations is being silently dropped, aggregated away or double-counted, and Excel refuses the whole computation for exactly that reason. LibreOffice answers anyway, with no indication that the timeline it modelled is not the timeline it was given. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch behave the same way on the same input.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#VALUE!', got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,H1:H20) on
Google Sheets returned
#NAME?, but the documented/expected
result is #NUM!.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If a constant step can't be identified in the provided timeline, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #NUM! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #NUM! -- the same systemic #VALUE!-substitution pattern already recorded across this corpus, an error-code difference rather than a computation one.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#NUM!', got '#NAME?'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A10) on
LibreOffice Calc returned
#VALUE!, but the documented/expected
result is #N/A.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If the ranges of the timeline and values aren't of same size, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #N/A error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #N/A. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch make the identical substitution on the identical input, so it is one behaviour in a shared argument-checking path rather than three separate slips.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#N/A', got '#VALUE!'
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,E1:E20) on
LibreOffice Calc returned
4, but the documented/expected
result is #VALUE!.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If timeline contains duplicate values, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #VALUE! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT, AND THE MOST SERIOUS FINDING IN THIS BATCH: no LibreOffice build errors here at all. Instead of the documented #VALUE!, every build reports a seasonality of 4 -- the same answer it gives for the well-formed timeline, so the duplicate is simply absorbed. A duplicate timestamp is not a cosmetic input flaw -- it means one of the observations is being silently dropped, aggregated away or double-counted, and Excel refuses the whole computation for exactly that reason. LibreOffice answers anyway, with no indication that the timeline it modelled is not the timeline it was given. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch behave the same way on the same input.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#VALUE!', got 4
-
=FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,H1:H20) on
LibreOffice Calc returned
#VALUE!, but the documented/expected
result is #NUM!.
Provenance
Excel documents: "If a constant step can't be identified in the provided timeline, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #NUM! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #NUM! -- the same systemic #VALUE!-substitution pattern already recorded across this corpus, an error-code difference rather than a computation one.; MISMATCH vs expected: expected '#NUM!', got '#VALUE!'
Executed test cases
Excel for the web (executed 2026-09-01 via OneDrive recalculation)
These values come from Excel for the web, not from desktop Excel. They are two different implementations of the calculation engine, and this run measured only the web one: the corpus was uploaded to OneDrive as .xlsx, recalculated by Excel for the web on open, and downloaded again for readback. Excel for the web is a rolling service with no pinnable version, so the run is identified by its date. Where a value here disagrees with the Expected column — which is Microsoft’s documentation of the desktop product — we cannot tell you whether the web engine diverges from the desktop one or the documentation is wrong about both, because we do not run desktop Excel.
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,A1:A20) | The detected pattern length of a series built to have exactly one repetitive pattern, of length 4 | #N/A | 4ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes no worked example (only a "Download a sample workbook" link), so this is asserted from the documented DEFINITION on a series constructed so that the definition has only one possible answer: "Returns the length of the repetitive pattern Excel detects for the specified time series." B1:B20 is 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times over a constant-step timeline -- a pattern of length 4 repeated exactly five times, with no other repetitive structure and no noise for a detector to trip over. Any implementation that detects a repetitive pattern at all must report 4 here; 2 does not fit (10, 20 then 30, 20 differ), and 20 is the whole series. This is the one FORECAST.ETS.* quantity in this batch that the algorithm's implementation freedom does not reach, which is exactly why it is the one asserted. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A20) | The same period-4 pattern with fixed non-zero residuals added | #N/A | 4ProvenanceThe companion to the clean case, and the reason both exist: a detector could pass the clean series by exact-matching repeated blocks. C1:C20 is the same 10, 20, 30, 20 pattern with the fixed residual sequence 0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... added, so no two cycles are identical yet the period is still unambiguously 4 (the residuals are small relative to the 20-unit swing of the pattern). HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,D1:D20) | The same period-4 series on a timeline whose constant step is 2 rather than 1 | #N/A | 4ProvenanceSeasonality is documented as "the length of the repetitive pattern" -- a count of data points, not a distance along the timeline. Rescaling the timeline from 1, 2, 3 ... to 2, 4, 6 ... leaves the pattern four points long, so the answer must still be 4. This separates an implementation that counts points from one that has confused the period with the timeline step. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(G1:G20,A1:A20) | A strictly linear series with no seasonal component, recorded as a probe | #N/A | ProvenanceNOT ASSERTED. G1:G20 is 7, 9, 11, ... 45 -- a straight line with no repetitive pattern of any length. Microsoft's page documents what the function returns when a pattern IS detected but says nothing about what it returns when none is; the sibling pages describe a seasonality ARGUMENT value of 0 as meaning "no seasonality, meaning the prediction will be linear", which suggests but does not state that 0 comes back here. Rather than assert an inference, the value is recorded. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return 1, i.e. a pattern length of one point, which is a way of saying "none" but is not the 0 the argument vocabulary would suggest. Recorded so a reader can see the answer without this corpus claiming Excel agrees. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A10) | Values and timeline of different lengths | #N/A | #N/AProvenanceExcel documents: "If the ranges of the timeline and values aren't of same size, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #N/A error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #N/A. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch make the identical substitution on the identical input, so it is one behaviour in a shared argument-checking path rather than three separate slips. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,E1:E20) | A timeline containing a duplicate value | #N/A | #VALUE!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If timeline contains duplicate values, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #VALUE! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT, AND THE MOST SERIOUS FINDING IN THIS BATCH: no LibreOffice build errors here at all. Instead of the documented #VALUE!, every build reports a seasonality of 4 -- the same answer it gives for the well-formed timeline, so the duplicate is simply absorbed. A duplicate timestamp is not a cosmetic input flaw -- it means one of the observations is being silently dropped, aggregated away or double-counted, and Excel refuses the whole computation for exactly that reason. LibreOffice answers anyway, with no indication that the timeline it modelled is not the timeline it was given. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch behave the same way on the same input. |
Inconclusive |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,H1:H20) | A timeline with no identifiable constant step | #N/A | #NUM!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If a constant step can't be identified in the provided timeline, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #NUM! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #NUM! -- the same systemic #VALUE!-substitution pattern already recorded across this corpus, an error-code difference rather than a computation one. |
Inconclusive |
Google Sheets (executed 2026-08-31 via Drive import)
Google Sheets is a rolling service with no pinnable version, so this run is identified by its date. The corpus was imported to Drive as .xlsx, recalculated by Sheets, and exported back for readback.
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,A1:A20) | The detected pattern length of a series built to have exactly one repetitive pattern, of length 4 | #NAME? | 4ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes no worked example (only a "Download a sample workbook" link), so this is asserted from the documented DEFINITION on a series constructed so that the definition has only one possible answer: "Returns the length of the repetitive pattern Excel detects for the specified time series." B1:B20 is 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times over a constant-step timeline -- a pattern of length 4 repeated exactly five times, with no other repetitive structure and no noise for a detector to trip over. Any implementation that detects a repetitive pattern at all must report 4 here; 2 does not fit (10, 20 then 30, 20 differ), and 20 is the whole series. This is the one FORECAST.ETS.* quantity in this batch that the algorithm's implementation freedom does not reach, which is exactly why it is the one asserted. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A20) | The same period-4 pattern with fixed non-zero residuals added | #NAME? | 4ProvenanceThe companion to the clean case, and the reason both exist: a detector could pass the clean series by exact-matching repeated blocks. C1:C20 is the same 10, 20, 30, 20 pattern with the fixed residual sequence 0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... added, so no two cycles are identical yet the period is still unambiguously 4 (the residuals are small relative to the 20-unit swing of the pattern). HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,D1:D20) | The same period-4 series on a timeline whose constant step is 2 rather than 1 | #NAME? | 4ProvenanceSeasonality is documented as "the length of the repetitive pattern" -- a count of data points, not a distance along the timeline. Rescaling the timeline from 1, 2, 3 ... to 2, 4, 6 ... leaves the pattern four points long, so the answer must still be 4. This separates an implementation that counts points from one that has confused the period with the timeline step. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(G1:G20,A1:A20) | A strictly linear series with no seasonal component, recorded as a probe | #NAME? | ProvenanceNOT ASSERTED. G1:G20 is 7, 9, 11, ... 45 -- a straight line with no repetitive pattern of any length. Microsoft's page documents what the function returns when a pattern IS detected but says nothing about what it returns when none is; the sibling pages describe a seasonality ARGUMENT value of 0 as meaning "no seasonality, meaning the prediction will be linear", which suggests but does not state that 0 comes back here. Rather than assert an inference, the value is recorded. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return 1, i.e. a pattern length of one point, which is a way of saying "none" but is not the 0 the argument vocabulary would suggest. Recorded so a reader can see the answer without this corpus claiming Excel agrees. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Error |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A10) | Values and timeline of different lengths | #NAME? | #N/AProvenanceExcel documents: "If the ranges of the timeline and values aren't of same size, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #N/A error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #N/A. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch make the identical substitution on the identical input, so it is one behaviour in a shared argument-checking path rather than three separate slips. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,E1:E20) | A timeline containing a duplicate value | #NAME? | #VALUE!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If timeline contains duplicate values, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #VALUE! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT, AND THE MOST SERIOUS FINDING IN THIS BATCH: no LibreOffice build errors here at all. Instead of the documented #VALUE!, every build reports a seasonality of 4 -- the same answer it gives for the well-formed timeline, so the duplicate is simply absorbed. A duplicate timestamp is not a cosmetic input flaw -- it means one of the observations is being silently dropped, aggregated away or double-counted, and Excel refuses the whole computation for exactly that reason. LibreOffice answers anyway, with no indication that the timeline it modelled is not the timeline it was given. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch behave the same way on the same input. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,H1:H20) | A timeline with no identifiable constant step | #NAME? | #NUM!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If a constant step can't be identified in the provided timeline, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #NUM! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #NUM! -- the same systemic #VALUE!-substitution pattern already recorded across this corpus, an error-code difference rather than a computation one. |
Mismatch |
LibreOffice Calc 25.8.7.3 (tested 2026-08-31)
| Formula | Description | Result | Expected | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,A1:A20) | The detected pattern length of a series built to have exactly one repetitive pattern, of length 4 | 4 | 4ProvenanceMicrosoft's page publishes no worked example (only a "Download a sample workbook" link), so this is asserted from the documented DEFINITION on a series constructed so that the definition has only one possible answer: "Returns the length of the repetitive pattern Excel detects for the specified time series." B1:B20 is 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times over a constant-step timeline -- a pattern of length 4 repeated exactly five times, with no other repetitive structure and no noise for a detector to trip over. Any implementation that detects a repetitive pattern at all must report 4 here; 2 does not fit (10, 20 then 30, 20 differ), and 20 is the whole series. This is the one FORECAST.ETS.* quantity in this batch that the algorithm's implementation freedom does not reach, which is exactly why it is the one asserted. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Matched |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A20) | The same period-4 pattern with fixed non-zero residuals added | 4 | 4ProvenanceThe companion to the clean case, and the reason both exist: a detector could pass the clean series by exact-matching repeated blocks. C1:C20 is the same 10, 20, 30, 20 pattern with the fixed residual sequence 0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... added, so no two cycles are identical yet the period is still unambiguously 4 (the residuals are small relative to the 20-unit swing of the pattern). HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Matched |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(B1:B20,D1:D20) | The same period-4 series on a timeline whose constant step is 2 rather than 1 | 4 | 4ProvenanceSeasonality is documented as "the length of the repetitive pattern" -- a count of data points, not a distance along the timeline. Rescaling the timeline from 1, 2, 3 ... to 2, 4, 6 ... leaves the pattern four points long, so the answer must still be 4. This separates an implementation that counts points from one that has confused the period with the timeline step. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Matched |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(G1:G20,A1:A20) | A strictly linear series with no seasonal component, recorded as a probe | 1 | ProvenanceNOT ASSERTED. G1:G20 is 7, 9, 11, ... 45 -- a straight line with no repetitive pattern of any length. Microsoft's page documents what the function returns when a pattern IS detected but says nothing about what it returns when none is; the sibling pages describe a seasonality ARGUMENT value of 0 as meaning "no seasonality, meaning the prediction will be linear", which suggests but does not state that 0 comes back here. Rather than assert an inference, the value is recorded. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return 1, i.e. a pattern length of one point, which is a way of saying "none" but is not the 0 the argument vocabulary would suggest. Recorded so a reader can see the answer without this corpus claiming Excel agrees. HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. |
Ran OK |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,A1:A10) | Values and timeline of different lengths | #VALUE! | #N/AProvenanceExcel documents: "If the ranges of the timeline and values aren't of same size, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #N/A error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #N/A. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch make the identical substitution on the identical input, so it is one behaviour in a shared argument-checking path rather than three separate slips. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,E1:E20) | A timeline containing a duplicate value | 4 | #VALUE!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If timeline contains duplicate values, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #VALUE! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT, AND THE MOST SERIOUS FINDING IN THIS BATCH: no LibreOffice build errors here at all. Instead of the documented #VALUE!, every build reports a seasonality of 4 -- the same answer it gives for the well-formed timeline, so the duplicate is simply absorbed. A duplicate timestamp is not a cosmetic input flaw -- it means one of the observations is being silently dropped, aggregated away or double-counted, and Excel refuses the whole computation for exactly that reason. LibreOffice answers anyway, with no indication that the timeline it modelled is not the timeline it was given. All three FORECAST.ETS.* functions in this batch behave the same way on the same input. |
Mismatch |
| =FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY(C1:C20,H1:H20) | A timeline with no identifiable constant step | #VALUE! | #NUM!ProvenanceExcel documents: "If a constant step can't be identified in the provided timeline, FORECAST.ETS.SEASONALITY will return the #NUM! error." HARNESS DATA (identical on every FORECAST.ETS.* case in this batch, and deliberately synthetic so the seasonal structure is a fact about the data rather than a guess): A1:A20 is the timeline 1..20, a constant step of 1. B1:B20 is a textbook-clean series of period 4 -- 10, 20, 30, 20 repeated five times -- so the only repetitive pattern present has length 4. C1:C20 is that same period-4 pattern plus a fixed, hard-coded residual sequence (0, 1, -1, 2, 0, -2, 1, 0, ... ), giving a series with real forecast error but an unambiguous season; nothing here is random, so the input is byte-identical on every run and every build. D1:D20 is the timeline 2, 4, ... 40, a constant step of 2. E1:E20 is the 1..20 timeline with its first two entries both set to 1, i.e. a DUPLICATE timeline value. G1:G20 is strictly linear (7, 9, ... 45) with no seasonal component. H1:H20 is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 33, ... -- a timeline with no constant step at all. Column F is left empty throughout because this harness writes the formula under test into cell F1. EXECUTED RESULT: all four LibreOffice builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) return #VALUE! here instead of the documented #NUM! -- the same systemic #VALUE!-substitution pattern already recorded across this corpus, an error-code difference rather than a computation one. |
Mismatch |
Docs & syntax
- Excel (desktop): official documentation