the y axis on this chart
Careful,
value changed definition in 2014.Title says H2 but the data runs longer.
Minor: CO2 per capita is off in the tooltip.
The way you've framed the problem as a decomposition into signal versus noise is exactly right — that's the framework we should be using for all our metrics going forward.
Wait, which of these is the Nordics?
Correcting myself: conversion is index-linked, so the comparison holds.
Why does the forecast diverge so much in Q4? See /u/vgt_britt_kruger/p/plot-0017.
Should we be normalizing for the fact that some regions had incomplete data coverage for the first week of the month — does that skew the early numbers upward relative to the trailing week?
Nice work on the breakdown.
What's the retention rate? See /u/vgt_britt_kruger/p/plot-0017.
Does this include China after 1996?
Agreed.
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.
Danke for your diligent work on this — it's the kind of thoroughness that prevents embarrassing discrepancies from slipping into published reports that executives rely on.
Careful,
raw_metric changed definition in 2009.The baseline marking is unclear.
Similar to what we saw in the pilot.
Agreed.
Good catch.
Spot on.
Aligns with the release schedule.
Should urban share be in absolute terms for this comparison to mean anything?
That is a coverage gap, not a real move. (edited to fix a unit)
Sounds right. (edited to fix a unit)
Can we discuss at standup?
Context for anyone new: retention is only comparable as a share of total.