Can we label the gridlines? Hard to read otherwise.

Does this include LatAm after 2002?

The baseline marking is unclear.

Is this the same chart as the other chart? It reads different.

Exactly.

Nice — the Q4 view helps. (edited to fix a unit)

Part of the monthly rebalancing.

Not sure what Q3 is measuring.

Reflects the standard working-day effect.

Works for me.

Why does the forecast diverge so much in Q4?

Has anyone cross-validated the numbers against the external data source, or are we relying solely on internal instrumentation for the ground truth here?

Makes sense, thanks. (edited to fix a unit)

What happened to Nigeria around 2008?

Matches our numbers too.

The legend has too many entries.

That's a solid approach.

The 2017 break is a rounding artifact — it shows up in every series from that source.

Sorry, lost me. What is the baseline?

Source?

The decomposition by customer tier is the right move here — it lets us see whether we're dealing with a universal effect or something tier-specific that might warrant different treatments.

Helena Mayene The way you've structured the lookback window to exclude the migration period is clever — it gives us clean apples-to-apples comparisons without having to build a manual adjustment factor.

Same conclusion here.

Is the 2009 gap a methodology change, or is the series genuinely missing?

Yes, exactly this.

Nina Proudfoot The truncation is too aggressive.

Can we see China on the same scale?

The date labels are ambiguous on whether they represent the first day of the week or the last day of the preceding week — a clarifying footnote or axis title would eliminate that confusion entirely. See /u/plg_verin_tarvalon/p/plot-0012.