a methodology change in the post-2020 window?
Felix Thane This is exactly the kind of methodological rigor we've been lacking — breaking it down by user acquisition source and controlling for platform differences is the right call.
Thanks , that resolves it.
This is accurate.
Fully aligned.
I'm on board. See /u/plg_kai_virtanen/p/plot-0138.
Following up on the previous investigation. See /u/plg_kai_virtanen/p/plot-0138.
The recovery matches previous cycles.
Missing 2021.
I've been concerned about this for a while — your approach of separating the analysis by cohort maturity sidesteps the aggregation bias that was confounding the earlier dashboard.
How is
raw_metric derived?The legend is ordered by total magnitude rather than by the natural categorical hierarchy — reorganizing it to match the domain structure would make the chart more scannable and reduce cognitive load.
Confirmed.
Confirmed.
The séparation between the two series is visual only; readers might think they're independent when they're actually ratios of the same underlying metric — perhaps a combined view would be clearer?
Fair enough.
Good catch.
Is the 2007 gap a rebasing, or is the series genuinely missing?
Felix Thane The inflection at the 60-day mark matches the typical customer lifecycle moment when trial users make their first renewal decision — that's not a product change, it's cohort maturity.
Should we cap the axis at a round number?
Good catch.
The line thickness varies oddly.
Same as before.
Milica Lindgren The spike aligns with the campaign launch.