The same excavation, two different earthwork answers
A 10m × 5m × 2m excavation has a real bank volume of 100 m³. Using that correct bank figure as the cut volume in an earthwork balance against a 60 m³ fill requirement gives a net surplus of 40 m³ to export. Using the excavation's loaded (swelled) volume of 125 m³ instead — a common mix-up — gives a net surplus of 65 m³, a meaningfully different, wrong answer for the exact same physical dig.
Why the mistake is easy to make
The excavation calculator reports both bank volume and loaded volume side by side, and the loaded figure is the "bigger, more prominent" number relevant to a different question (truck sizing). It's an easy slip to grab that number for a cut-and-fill balance instead of the bank volume the comparison actually requires.
Why the two volumes measure genuinely different things
Bank volume describes the undisturbed hole in the ground — a fixed geometric fact about the site itself. Loaded volume describes how much space that same soil takes up once dug up and loosened — a property of the disturbed material, not the site. A cut-and-fill balance compares site-to-site soil requirements, so it needs the site-based (bank) figure on both sides of the comparison.
The practical rule
Always carry bank volume, not loaded volume, into an earthwork cut-and-fill calculation — the loaded volume's only real use is sizing how many truckloads a hauling contractor will need, a separate logistics question from whether the site itself has a soil surplus or shortfall.