Revenue Protection %

Percentage of the planned roadmap (typically next 1–2 quarters) allocated to offensive bets — net-new capabilities, market expansion, differentiation moats, new monetization. The "what proportion of the plan is about winning" view. Common pitfall: counting "improvements to existing features" as offensive when the change is really table-stakes parity work. Boards should expect a McKinsey-style horizon framing (Horizon 1 = core, Horizon 2 = adjacent, Horizon 3 = transformational) or an equivalent classification, and apply it consistently. Per the original McKinsey "Three Horizons" framing (Baghai/Coley/White, "The Alchemy of Growth", 1999), a healthy portfolio funds all three — over-indexing on any one is a strategic risk.

Percentage of R&D capacity (typically measured in engineering-weeks or story points over a quarter) allocated to net-new capabilities, as opposed to maintenance, bug fixes, internal tooling, or customer-support engineering. The "available bandwidth for offense" view. Common pitfall: confusing innovation capacity (input — how much team-time is available for new work) with `offensive_roadmap_pct` (output — what proportion of the planned roadmap is growth-oriented). A team can have 60% innovation capacity allocated entirely to defensive work if the roadmap demands it. Boards should look at both together.

Percentage of customer churn (logo or ARR, define explicitly) where the primary stated reason is product or quality problems — bugs, performance, missing core functionality, reliability incidents. Distinguishes product-driven churn from pricing-driven, competitor-driven, or use-case-fit-driven churn. Common pitfall: relying on free-text exit-survey reasons. Customers commonly cite "price" when the underlying issue was reliability or missing features — boards should require both the customer-stated reason and the CSM/Account-Manager-assigned root cause, and watch the gap. The Pendo "Product-Led Growth Benchmark" and similar product-analytics publishers cover product-driven churn qualitatively, not as published numeric ranges.

Months of system capacity remaining at the current growth rate before the platform requires major (not incremental) infrastructure investment — typically driven by the binding bottleneck (database, message bus, single-tenant compute ceiling, regional capacity, or compliance-driven re-architecture). Surfaces the "scale runway" alongside the financial runway. Common pitfall: a single number hides which bottleneck binds. Boards should require the bottleneck to be named ("database shard hot-spot binds at ~150K accounts at current growth, ~4 months out"), not just the headline months — a named bottleneck makes the investment decision concrete.

Stoplight-plus-narrative status of the strategic product initiatives committed for the current quarter / half — each initiative ideally tagged on-track / at-risk / blocked / shipped, with a one-line explanation. The execution-pulse view that connects strategy intent to delivery reality. Common pitfall: every initiative defaults to "on track" until two weeks before the deadline, then turns red — a board that only sees binary green-or-red status without intermediate "at-risk" signaling is being managed reactively. Pair with `delivery_predictability` to detect this pattern; require at-risk initiatives to surface a mitigation plan, not just a label.