If this gets addressed later in the course, I'll update or delete this comment. But for now as I'm mapping this data for import I'm thinking that as this stands, the "Needs piano" box is getting automatically checked for every band that already has a piano. The easiest fix may be to just edit the field to say "Has piano" instead, but not every band that doesn't have a piano would need one. Hmmm...
Yes you are correct that there is a mismatch and no it does not get addressed later in the course (at least not that I recall) so I adopted a positive outlook and decided they wanted this to be a learning experience.
My own take (what I learned):
1) Advance planning is very important.
2) I should have the csv files before creating the band and stage objects so I would know exactly what to name the fields.
3) In the event the csv files were not available initially, an in-depth discussion with stakeholders would be scheduled as soon as the issue was identified to address the mismatch.
4) During that conversation or meeting a decision would be made regarding how to handle the issue (rename a field, add a new field, etc).
5) Data integrity is one of the most critical aspects of any database project.
6) Any future data import activities will follow these guidelines. :-)
Recognizing that "has piano" is not the same thing as "needs piano" and no heads would roll because of my decision, I matched them anyway just to move past this point. I also made note that, in the future, I would follow the guidelines I mentioned above in order to prevent a potential "garbage-in, garbage-out" situation.