The regional weights used in the aggregation are fixed at their 2010 values, which means the aggregate composition has drifted as regional sizes change. For the last 15 years, the nominal weights no longer reflect actual proportions. Should we reweight with current figures, or should we keep the 2010 basis for historical continuity?
When was the data last refreshed?
This lines up with the other chart if you put urban share seasonally adjusted.
Hugo Whitfoot The forecast includes a confidence band that's asymmetric, wider on the upside than the downside, which suggests the underlying model assumes a particular risk distribution. Should we document whether this asymmetry reflects real constraints (e.g., a ceiling or floor) or is an artifact of the forecasting method?
The sum doesn't match the chart.
This is clipped — DACH was restated in 1995.
Works for me.