INTERNAL PROCESS · KPI · LEADING

TAT — ACS cross-sellAP-04

23.8— No target◈MANAGED

ACTUAL VS PLAN

TURNAROUND DISTRIBUTION

Does the average hide the cases that breach?

How much of this is measured: ACF publishes a single average TAT per product. The published average is drawn as a dot; the box around it is MODELLED to show why an average is the wrong summary — a 17-minute mean with a long right tail is a different operation from a tight 17. Replace with the real distribution as soon as the Appraisal daily report is extracted rather than read.

DEFINITION

Formula: decision time
Unit / direction: number · lower better
Source system: Appraisal daily report
Refresh: daily_t1
Target: TBC
Target status: PROPOSED BY IKIGAI (T-01)
Baseline in context/: 30 min

OWNERSHIP — two roles, two people (R-G-02)

Metric owner — owns the target and the result

Head of Appraisal Department

Data owner — owns the source system and pipeline

IT System Planning

Both proposed by Ikigai and awaiting ACF confirmation (DEC-02).

GUARD METRIC — the check on this number (R-G-06)

QA sample pass rate

AP-10

51.6%

-43.4pp vs target 95.0%

MANUALAppraisal QC⏱ T+1target proposed

Head of Appraisal Department·IT System Planning

A headline KPI is resolved with its guard, so the pairing cannot be forgotten by the UI.

COMMENTARY — why the number is what it is

No commentary recorded for this metric. A red tile with no explanation is the failure mode the current monthly pack already has.

Commentary is attached to the metric and period, not to a slide. It survives the month — which is what makes a variance reviewable at the next meeting instead of re-argued. Prototype — read-only fixtures; at fullstack this is the COMMENT table with author identity from AD.