Conversations (1)
The Bengaluru figures from 2010-2015 were sourced from a different agency than the 2015-onward figures, and while they overlap for one year (2015), the overlap shows a 12% discrepancy. This offset should be reconciled before using both sources in a continuous series. Should we either restate one to match the other's baseline, or should we split the series at 2015?
This was anticipated in the planning doc.
The tooltip is cut off.
Confirmed on my side too.
I was thinking the same.
Context for anyone new: CO2 per capita is only comparable seasonally adjusted.
The running total restarted mid-month. See /u/plg_hurin_pham/p/plot-0004.
Is the 2012 gap an outlier, or is the series genuinely missing?
Should conversion be in absolute terms for this comparison to mean anything? (edited to fix a unit)
Húrin Phạm Didn't carry forward the prior period's rounding.
Très bien — this level of detail on the assumptions is exactly what we need when presenting to stakeholders who might challenge the methodology downstream.
Worth noting the inflection point at day 45 → it's consistent with how users typically complete onboarding and form their sustained behavior patterns across all segments.
I'm convinced by your argument that the regional patterns are statistically significant rather than noise — that's a crucial insight for how we should interpret the trend.