The user who posted this question is doing something smart: they are looking for a practical workaround because they sense the tool they are using isn't built for the task. They want to count events by day of the week from a column of dates. Their instinct to reach for a `COUNTIF` with `"*Mon*"` is clever, but it reveals a deeper friction. They are fighting the spreadsheet to get a simple answer. That is not their fault. It is the tool's limitation.
Counting events by day of the week is one of the most common data tasks there is. Yet the user is forced to ask whether the formatted text, the "Mon" label that the spreadsheet displays, can be copied and treated as raw data, because the underlying date value does not contain that text. This is a symptom of a tool that expects you to know its hidden functions. In Google Sheets or Excel, the answer would be something like `=TEXT(A2,"ddd")` to extract the day name, then a `COUNTIF` on that. But the user should not have to chain multiple formulas just to answer a basic question about their own data. That is not a skill gap. It is a design gap.
What this user really needs is a system that understands the question the moment they ask it. They do not need to know that dates are stored as serial numbers, or that formatting is distinct from content. They need to say, "Count how many events fall on each day of the week," and see the result. That is what AI-native spreadsheets are beginning to deliver. Instead of forcing the user to reverse-engineer the display layer of their data, the tool should interpret the intent and return the breakdown directly. The user's workaround is a sign of resilience, but it should not be necessary.
Our view is that this moment, a user trying to coax a day-of-week count out of a date column, represents exactly where traditional spreadsheets fall short. They are powerful for people who already speak their language, and opaque for everyone else. The future of data management is not about teaching users more formulas. It is about building tools that meet them where they are. The user who posted this question is not looking for a better workaround. They are looking for a better way. That is the transformation worth exploring.