The regional aggregate includes an "unallocated" category that represents 2-5% of the total, but its composition isn't documented. This black hole makes it hard to assess data quality and impossible to reconcile with component-level totals. Should we either break down the unallocated category or exclude it from the aggregate?
We hit the same thing last Q2. The fix was to hold
raw_metric constant.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.
The Moscow reclassification in 2012 incorporated several surrounding municipalities, officially increasing the city boundaries. Our data shows the jump at the correct time, but there's no bridge data to separate the organic growth from the territorial expansion. Should we add a footnote explaining that 2012 is not comparable to earlier years, or do we need to restate the pre-2012 data on the new geographic basis? See /u/plg_sheriam_beridze/p/plot-0039.
Am I reading the tick labels wrong? Brazil looks wrong to me.
This is mislabelled — Kenya was restated in 2000.
raised this on the other chart too, same a source revision.
Same conclusion here.