Having worked at the State Attorney's office in my state and having filled out numerous of these worksheets, I can tell you that not all of the cases with inconsistencies are simple errors. These worksheets (and their guidelines) are fairly open to interpretation. For instance, a defendant gets a certain number of points for past convictions...however, the prosecutor could assign a different number of points for an offense if they so chose (e.g., a previous conviction for burglary of a dwelling should get 2 points but the prosecutor knowingly treats the conviction as a simple burglary and assigns only 1 point), thereby either decreasing the overall number of points (resulting in a lower sentence recommendation) or increasing the overall number of points (resulting in a higher sentence recommendation). Also, a prosecutor can chose not to include certain previous offenses in the worksheet (I've seen prosecutors not include misdemeanors, for example, which do not account for many points because they said it wasn't worth their time to write them all in and figure up the numbers when a defendant had a long criminal history). On the other hand, I've seen and heard of particularly unscrupulous prosecutors manipulating the worksheets to result in more points (and, therefore, a higher sentencing recommendation), while still technically staying within the guideline for use. Undoubtedly, many of the inconsistencies are purely errors in filling out the worksheet and calculating the numbers...but not all of these inconsistencies come about so innocently.