INTERNAL PROCESS · KPI · LEADING

Score-band cut-off adherenceAP-08

0✓ On target◈MANAGED

ACTUAL VS PLAN

DECLINE-REASON PARETO

How many levers actually move approval rate?

How much of this is measured: Only the two labelled counts are ACF's. The remaining reason codes are Ikigai's reading of a standard consumer-finance decline taxonomy and carry (inferred) — ACF's real decline-code list replaces this wholesale. The point of the chart is the SHAPE: if two codes carry most declines, two policy levers move approval rate.

VARIANCE TO PLAN — computed in-platform, not in Excel

DEFINITION

Formula: approvals at Score 8–10 ÷ approvals
Unit / direction: number · higher better
Source system: Appraisal daily report
Refresh: daily_t1
Target: 0
Target status: From an ACF document
Baseline in context/: 0 approvals against 134 rejections at Score 8–10

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).

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.