Skip to lesson
Exit
Data, SQL & Measurement1 / 2

1 min lesson

Document definitions to end the "whose number" fight

Choose two examples from the table in "Document definitions to end the 'whose number' fight" and explain what each teaches you to do.

Step 1 of 2

Document definitions to end the "whose number" fightself-sufficiency by design

The fastest way to lose trust in data is two dashboards showing different "qualified lead" counts. A short, versioned metric dictionary, one definition per metric with the exact logic and owner, prevents it. This is the lightweight documentation the role explicitly asks you to maintain.

Metric
Qualified lead
Definition (exact logic)
First crossing ICP score 75, verified email, matched account, non-customer
Owner
GTM Eng
Source of truth
lead_stage_history
Metric
Match rate
Definition (exact logic)
Leads with usable enrichment / total enriched, rolling 7d
Owner
GTM Eng
Source of truth
enrichment_runs
Metric
Routed within SLA
Definition (exact logic)
Routed ≤ 15 min of qualify / total routed
Owner
GTM Eng
Source of truth
routing_events

One row per metric; the dashboard chart links to its row.

The dashboard is a teaching tool

When every chart links to its definition and ships with an alert and a clear "so what," the team stops asking you what a number means and starts acting on it. That's the self-sufficiency the seat is measured on and it's why dashboard design is engineering, not decoration.

Interview move

Asked to design a dashboard, start with the question and the person: "This is for the program lead to decide weekly whether to reallocate enrichment spend." Then build backward to the three panels that answer it. Designing from the decision, not the data, reads as senior.

Learn more

Optional practice

Practice: Document definitions to end the "whose number" fight

QTwo teams pull "qualified leads" from different dashboards and get different numbers, eroding trust in the data. As the GTM Engineer, what's the durable fix?