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.