FPD5+ on approved vintageAP-09
Is the book we are writing now worse than last year’s?
How much of this is measured: Curve SHAPE between the published points is modelled, not measured — ACF publishes peaks and 12M averages, not a full MOB series. The DWH fact must be built at cohort × channel × scheme × month-on-book or this chart cannot be produced for real (03 §6).
- Formula
- FPD5+ ÷ vintage disbursed
- Unit / direction
- pct · lower better
- Source system
- DWH
- Refresh
- daily_t1
- Target
- ≤ 4%
- Target status
- From an ACF document
- Baseline in context/
- 12M 2.71%; Jan-26 cohort 4.56%
Both proposed by Ikigai and awaiting ACF confirmation (DEC-02).
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.