Missing Iberia data after 2006
Careful,
series_id changed definition in 2004.Can you split H1 out?
The bars need a bit more padding.
Consider a different color scheme.
Is the other chart built from the same extract?
Is the anomaly index-linked here?
This is inverted — Norway was restated in 2011.
Kwame Lowell I'm fully on board with the decision to use the external reference as the ground truth — it gives us an objective baseline when there's ambiguity in our internal methods.
Should we use a stacked view?
The 2009 tick is wrong.
Yes, exactly this. (edited to fix a unit)
Confirmed on my side too.
Huda Flint This feels like the kind of transparent, defensible analysis that would hold up under scrutiny if we ever needed to justify the numbers to external auditors.
Works for me.
Confirmed on my side too.
Makes sense, thanks.
the gridlines starts at zero for one series and not the other.
Not sure what
Region is measuring.This is much clearer, thanks.
The 2013 break is a definition change — it shows up in every series from that source.
Needs a legend.
Confirmed on my side too.
Makes sense, thanks.
We hit the same thing last H1. The fix was to hold
series_id constant.Nahuel Salvatore Fully aligned.
Is the 2019 gap a source revision, or is the series genuinely missing?
The conversion includes failed attempts. See /u/plg_berelain_holm/p/plot-0053.
This might be worth a retrospective.
Finrod Wexler Worth noting — we should discuss methodology going forward.
The title could be more descriptive.
Agreed.
Confused by the 2010 value — is that a reporting lag?
I had this wrong earlier. Poland is fine; it was
Year that was off.Is the 2024 gap an outlier, or is the series genuinely missing?