Description of problem:

After each patching cycle, management requires valid and accurate data for installed errata per host. Currently, the built-in report in Satellite (e.g., “Installed Errata” report) generates misleading results.

Example from last patching cycle:

Host: Rhel8.example.com (RHEL 8.10)

Host: Rhel9.example.com (RHEL 9.6)

How reproducible:

100%

Is this issue a regression from an earlier version:

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Patch multiple hosts running different RHEL minor versions (e.g., 8.10 and 9.6). Generate the applied errata report.

2. Login to Satellite WEB UI >  Monitor > Report Templates > Host - Applied Errata(Generate with default values).

3. Compare with per-host data (yum updateinfo list installed + rpm -qa --last).

Actual behavior:
The Satellite report shows both hosts having the same set of errata installed.

However, the list of errata is a mixture of RHEL 8.10 and RHEL 9.6 advisories.

Expected behavior:

The Installed Errata report should accurately reflect per-host data, equivalent to the combination of:

yum updateinfo list installed

rpm -qa --last

Each host should only list the errata actually applied to its packages, along with advisory ID, package name, and installation date.

Business Impact / Additional info:

Incorrect reporting to management.

Inability to provide compliance evidence after patching cycles.

Risk of misinterpretation of patching status and security exposure.