TO_DOLLARS

DERIVED, not published: TO_DOLLARS(40826.43) appears in the Sample Usage block with no result beside it. The claim being checked is the page's own framing -- "TO_DOLLARS is equivalent to applying Format -> Number -> Currency from the menu bar" -- which makes the operation a formatting change, so the number must come back unchanged. WHAT THIS HARNESS CAN AND CANNOT SEE FOR A TO_* FUNCTION. The TO_* parsers are FORMATTING functions: the page itself describes the operation as equivalent to applying a Format > Number command from the menu bar. What changes is the cell's number format, not the number. This harness records the computed VALUE read back from a recalculated .xlsx, so the format half of the documented behaviour is invisible to it and is NOT asserted anywhere in this file. What is asserted is the value half, which the page states outright: the underlying number survives the conversion unchanged, and a non-numeric argument is returned unmodified. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "TO_DOLLARS differs from the related function DOLLAR in that DOLLAR outputs text rather than applying a cell format to a number." That sentence makes two separable claims; this case asserts the TO_DOLLARS half (the result is still a number) and the next case asserts the DOLLAR half, so a failure identifies which of the two is wrong. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241. WHAT THIS CASE LOOKS LIKE IN AN ENGINE THAT LACKS THE FUNCTION, SAID HERE SO THE ROW IS NOT MISREAD. The assertion is wrapped in an IS* predicate, and a predicate does not propagate #NAME? -- it answers it. On all four LibreOffice builds, where this function does not exist, the case therefore returns a plain FALSE rather than the #NAME? its unwrapped siblings return. That FALSE is a correct answer to the question the predicate asks and a misleading one about the engine, so it is recorded as a mismatch and the function's LibreOffice verdict is carried by the unwrapped cases in the same file, which do return #NAME?. (Batch H hit the same masking trap from the other side, where COUNTA(QUERY(...)) counted an error cell as one value and returned a plausible 1.)

DERIVED from the same Notes bullet. DOLLAR itself is already in this corpus with executed results in Google Sheets (2026-08-29), Excel for the web (2026-09-01) and all four LibreOffice builds; it appears here only as the control the TO_DOLLARS page explicitly names. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from "If value is not a number or a reference to a cell containing a numeric value, TO_DOLLARS returns value without modification." Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "Because dates and percentages are backed by numbers, TO_DOLLARS will convert them successfully. However, these conversions are not typically meaningful." The page warns that the RESULT is not meaningful, not that it errors, so what is asserted is precisely that: the call succeeds and the underlying number is untouched. No claim is made about how it displays. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED, not published: TO_DOLLARS(40826.43) appears in the Sample Usage block with no result beside it. The claim being checked is the page's own framing -- "TO_DOLLARS is equivalent to applying Format -> Number -> Currency from the menu bar" -- which makes the operation a formatting change, so the number must come back unchanged. WHAT THIS HARNESS CAN AND CANNOT SEE FOR A TO_* FUNCTION. The TO_* parsers are FORMATTING functions: the page itself describes the operation as equivalent to applying a Format > Number command from the menu bar. What changes is the cell's number format, not the number. This harness records the computed VALUE read back from a recalculated .xlsx, so the format half of the documented behaviour is invisible to it and is NOT asserted anywhere in this file. What is asserted is the value half, which the page states outright: the underlying number survives the conversion unchanged, and a non-numeric argument is returned unmodified. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "TO_DOLLARS differs from the related function DOLLAR in that DOLLAR outputs text rather than applying a cell format to a number." That sentence makes two separable claims; this case asserts the TO_DOLLARS half (the result is still a number) and the next case asserts the DOLLAR half, so a failure identifies which of the two is wrong. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241. WHAT THIS CASE LOOKS LIKE IN AN ENGINE THAT LACKS THE FUNCTION, SAID HERE SO THE ROW IS NOT MISREAD. The assertion is wrapped in an IS* predicate, and a predicate does not propagate #NAME? -- it answers it. On all four LibreOffice builds, where this function does not exist, the case therefore returns a plain FALSE rather than the #NAME? its unwrapped siblings return. That FALSE is a correct answer to the question the predicate asks and a misleading one about the engine, so it is recorded as a mismatch and the function's LibreOffice verdict is carried by the unwrapped cases in the same file, which do return #NAME?. (Batch H hit the same masking trap from the other side, where COUNTA(QUERY(...)) counted an error cell as one value and returned a plausible 1.)

DERIVED from the same Notes bullet. DOLLAR itself is already in this corpus with executed results in Google Sheets (2026-08-29), Excel for the web (2026-09-01) and all four LibreOffice builds; it appears here only as the control the TO_DOLLARS page explicitly names. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from "If value is not a number or a reference to a cell containing a numeric value, TO_DOLLARS returns value without modification." Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "Because dates and percentages are backed by numbers, TO_DOLLARS will convert them successfully. However, these conversions are not typically meaningful." The page warns that the RESULT is not meaningful, not that it errors, so what is asserted is precisely that: the call succeeds and the underlying number is untouched. No claim is made about how it displays. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED, not published: TO_DOLLARS(40826.43) appears in the Sample Usage block with no result beside it. The claim being checked is the page's own framing -- "TO_DOLLARS is equivalent to applying Format -> Number -> Currency from the menu bar" -- which makes the operation a formatting change, so the number must come back unchanged. WHAT THIS HARNESS CAN AND CANNOT SEE FOR A TO_* FUNCTION. The TO_* parsers are FORMATTING functions: the page itself describes the operation as equivalent to applying a Format > Number command from the menu bar. What changes is the cell's number format, not the number. This harness records the computed VALUE read back from a recalculated .xlsx, so the format half of the documented behaviour is invisible to it and is NOT asserted anywhere in this file. What is asserted is the value half, which the page states outright: the underlying number survives the conversion unchanged, and a non-numeric argument is returned unmodified. BATCH PROVENANCE (batch I, group 1 -- the last eight Google-documented functions in the corpus, closing the group A set sheets-lo-only-plan.md opened). This function has x == false in docs/data/compat.json: Microsoft does not document it at all, so this corpus makes NO claim about it in that engine and nothing here is measured against that vendor's documentation. The authority is Google's own support.google.com function page, cited by full URL and by the date it was read (2026-08-31) -- Google publishes no version number for these pages, so a bare URL dates nothing. WHAT GOOGLE PRINTS ON THESE EIGHT PAGES IS LESS THAN IT LOOKS, AND EVERY NOTE SAYS SO. Each page carries a 'Sample Usage' block of FORMULAS WITH NO RESULTS and an 'Examples' section that is a live embedded spreadsheet rather than article text, so ACROSS ALL EIGHT PAGES THERE IS NOT ONE PUBLISHED FORMULA/RESULT PAIR IN THE BODY. Every expected value in this group is therefore DERIVED from the page's own stated semantics and names the sentence it came from; the one exception is UNARY_PERCENT, whose one-line description states its result inline. No value was taken from a search snippet, a blog or a mirror. LIBREOFFICE: probed before execution on all four pinned builds (24.2.0.3, 24.8.7.2, 25.2.0.3, 25.8.7.3) in five storage spellings -- plain, _xlfn., COM.MICROSOFT., ORG.OPENOFFICE. and _xlfn.ORG.OPENOFFICE. -- and #NAME? under every one of them on every build, so the expected values below describe Google Sheets and the LibreOffice column records absence. (A separate check confirms the absence is real rather than a name-mapping artefact: round-tripping these eight names through LibreOffice's own formula parser and its .xlsx export writes them back lower-cased -- 'to_date', 'uminus' -- which is what LibreOffice does with an identifier it does not recognise as a function at all.) Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "TO_DOLLARS differs from the related function DOLLAR in that DOLLAR outputs text rather than applying a cell format to a number." That sentence makes two separable claims; this case asserts the TO_DOLLARS half (the result is still a number) and the next case asserts the DOLLAR half, so a failure identifies which of the two is wrong. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241. WHAT THIS CASE LOOKS LIKE IN AN ENGINE THAT LACKS THE FUNCTION, SAID HERE SO THE ROW IS NOT MISREAD. The assertion is wrapped in an IS* predicate, and a predicate does not propagate #NAME? -- it answers it. On all four LibreOffice builds, where this function does not exist, the case therefore returns a plain FALSE rather than the #NAME? its unwrapped siblings return. That FALSE is a correct answer to the question the predicate asks and a misleading one about the engine, so it is recorded as a mismatch and the function's LibreOffice verdict is carried by the unwrapped cases in the same file, which do return #NAME?. (Batch H hit the same masking trap from the other side, where COUNTA(QUERY(...)) counted an error cell as one value and returned a plausible 1.)

DERIVED from the same Notes bullet. DOLLAR itself is already in this corpus with executed results in Google Sheets (2026-08-29), Excel for the web (2026-09-01) and all four LibreOffice builds; it appears here only as the control the TO_DOLLARS page explicitly names. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from "If value is not a number or a reference to a cell containing a numeric value, TO_DOLLARS returns value without modification." Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.

DERIVED from the Notes bullet "Because dates and percentages are backed by numbers, TO_DOLLARS will convert them successfully. However, these conversions are not typically meaningful." The page warns that the RESULT is not meaningful, not that it errors, so what is asserted is precisely that: the call succeeds and the underlying number is untouched. No claim is made about how it displays. Google's TO_DOLLARS page, read live on 2026-08-31 at https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3094241.