Active POS countNS-02
A 29% company average — but which regions?
How much of this is measured: NS-01 has NO SYSTEM OF RECORD — ACF's own KPI mapping cannot answer where the number comes from. Company anchors (29% Apr-26, 33.7% Jan-26, 23–47% regional spread, HCMC ~23% vs North-East ~45–47%) are ACF's; the month-by-region interpolation between them is Ikigai's and is why this metric renders 🔴 Manual. It must not be published until a source of record exists (D-14).
- Formula
- TO BE DEFINED WITH METRIC OWNER
- Unit / direction
- number · higher better
- Source system
- no system of record ⚠ in no ACF inventory
- Refresh
- daily_t1
- Target
- — none agreed
- Target status
- PROPOSED BY IKIGAI (T-01)
- Baseline in context/
- 567 active of 1,684 dealers; ~1,782 POS across 46 provinces
Both proposed by Ikigai and awaiting ACF confirmation (DEC-02).
- Clause that fired
- no Layer-1, regulatory or agreed-target signal in the registry today
- Share of customer
- 2.3%
- Of total attention
- 0.57% at the approved weighting
The band is derived, not chosen — a published rule over facts already in the registry, re-runnable with tools/assign_weights.py. It is what the strategy simulator splits a perspective’s weight by, which is why it is not cosmetic: change this band and the shortlist changes. Q-28 asks who at ACF owns the decision.
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.