Has anyone run into issues with the Vendor Name Tablematch and it's impact on the Vendor Count?

When using the Vendor Portfolio / Vendor Spend by Category report and clicking on the Details tab you can pivot by different metadata: Vendor Function, Vendor Location, etc.  The sub-report for in the drill down is Vendor Type details.  Due to the Normalized Vendor Name that is driven by the Vendor Name Tablematch the Vendor Count at times doesn't match the number of rows in the table. 

Example:In the Reference Application this can be seen as the Vendor Count is 7 while there are 8 Vendors listed.

Has this caused confusion with your end users?  If yes, how did you resolve?

Has anyone changed the Vendor Count metric to count on the Vendor Name?

Looking forward your thoughts on this.

Hey Audrey,

In this specific instance I think it absolutely makes sense to normalize the count in the KPI based on what is shown in the details table below. I could definitely see that causing some confusion, but more generally my advice anytime I receive a question like this is that there is no one right answer. You know your end users better than anyone, so don't be afraid to go with your gut.