# Ch 6 Practice — Pipeline Coverage by Region — Schema

Tidy long CSV in `practice-ch6-pipeline-coverage.csv`. One row per region per quarter. The richer nested form, including the four-surface critique and its Refine directions, is in `practice-ch6-pipeline-coverage.json`.

## Columns

| Column | Type | Description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `region` | text | Sales region (`North America`, `EMEA`, `APAC`, `LATAM`, `Central Europe`, `ANZ`). |
| `palette_role` | text | Which slot the region occupies in the brand palette: `brand-1` through `brand-5`, or `fallback-gray` for the sixth series the palette could not seat. |
| `hex` | text | The colour the chart actually assigned, as generated. |
| `quarter` | text | Quarter label (`Q4`, `Q1`, `Q2`, `Q3`), a trailing four-quarter window ending in the current quarter. |
| `coverage_pct` | integer | Pipeline coverage as a percentage of quota. `100` means pipeline exactly equals quota. |

## Row inventory

- 6 regions × 4 quarters — 24 rows.

Total: 24 rows.

## Headline numbers

These are pinned by `practice-ch6-pipeline-coverage-contract.test.mjs` in the book repository. Any chart built from this data should reproduce them exactly.

| Claim | Value |
| --- | --- |
| EMEA opening coverage | `95%` |
| EMEA closing coverage | `80%` |
| ANZ closing coverage | `155%` |
| APAC closing coverage | `155%` — tied with ANZ |
| Regions below 100% coverage | `1` — EMEA only |
| Regions declining | `3` — North America, EMEA, ANZ |
| Series drawn | `6` |
| Brand palette slots available | `5` |

Every series moves monotonically, so no region is noisy enough to distract from the four presentation failures the figure is teaching.

## Deliberate design choices

**Six series against a five-colour palette.** The palette shortfall is the point. A brand palette sized for five categories is handed six, and the sixth region silently receives a neutral gray. That gray then reads as *de-emphasised* even though ANZ carries the highest values in the chart, which is the second-order harm the exercise asks readers to name.

**Three regions decline, but only one is below 100%.** If EMEA were the only declining region, "spot the falling line" would be a sufficient reading strategy and the chart's failures would not matter much. Three declines mean decline alone does not isolate the story. The reader has to notice that coverage under `100%` is a different *kind* of fact — the pipeline no longer covers quota at all — and no encoded channel in the chart marks that threshold.

**APAC and LATAM open ten points apart.** `#0d9488` teal and `#15803d` green are close enough in hue to collapse under deuteranopia. Opening them only ten percentage points apart means position cannot rescue the distinction at the left edge either. They then diverge rather than cross, so the ambiguity is worst exactly where the reader enters the chart.

**APAC and ANZ end on the same value.** Both close at `155%`, which collides their end-of-line labels. The book figure resolves this by straddling the two labels symmetrically around the shared point; the collision itself is preserved because label placement is a real cost of labelling every series instead of the one that matters.

**Every glyph inside the plot is set at the same size and weight.** Chart title, axis title, tick labels and end-of-line values are all 12px regular. This is the typographic-hierarchy failure encoded literally rather than described. Only the figure header above the chart is larger, and that is book chrome, not part of the artefact under critique.

**Coverage values are scaled for legibility, not realism.** Healthy pipeline coverage in enterprise sales is conventionally `300%` or more. Values here run `80%` to `170%` so that a `120`-point axis range produces clean 20-point gridlines and readable line separation at print size. The threshold that carries meaning — `100%` — sits inside the plotted range, which is what the exercise needs.

## What this dataset is for

Chapter 6's *Practice with us* problem. The reader is shown the chart as Copilot generated it and asked to critique it across four surfaces at once — palette type, accessibility, typographic hierarchy, and pre-attentive emphasis — then give the Refine direction that corrects each. The JSON records all four under `four_failures`, each with its `failure` description and its `refine_direction`, so the exercise can be checked.

This is a practice-scope dataset, not one of the fourteen character datasets. No anchor character owns it.

## License

Released for teaching use alongside *The Defensible Decision*. Use freely.