AGI per AE
The way agi per ae is calculated changed between these two points, so they are not comparable and no movement is shown.
Comparisons resume once a full period has been recorded the new way. The number itself is unaffected.
Where it stands
Monthly, up to the last 12 months
AGI per AE reads $467k. Which half of the ratio moved is not served on this read; the sections below say why.
- Window
- Stated as of Aug 23, 2026. The period the reading covers is set by its source and is not stated on this tile.
- How it is counted
- Adjusted gross income divided by the number of account executives on the team.
- Source
- Financial ledger, as of Aug 23, 2026
- Drivers
- Computed from this workspace's own records.
What this is
Adjusted gross income per account executive. Adjusted gross income divided by the number of account executives on the team.
Why it is on your dashboard
How much earned income each account executive's book supports. The working band is $400K to $500K per AE. Under it, account management is overstaffed for the book; over it, AEs are stretched and at-risk accounts stop getting attention. It sits on this board against target $400K to $500K.
Why it is where it is
Not answered here.
Which half of this average moved, and by how much, needs your workspace's own stored history behind both halves. That history read is not composed for live workspaces yet, so this breakdown is withheld rather than modeled.
The movement view composes from the same stored history the drill chart draws. When it serves for this workspace, this section states which half of the average moved and by how much.
What we checked, in order
Not answered here.
There is no ruled order of checks for AGI per AE yet. Three of these ordered diagnostics exist and they attach to the profit share, an account under the floor, and absorbed work. This metric is not one of them.
An ordered set of checks is worth more than a list of things to look at, because the order is what stops the most expensive move being tried first. Writing one for this metric is a decision about how it should be diagnosed rather than a gap in the data.
Root cause
Not answered here.
Without the movement decomposition there is no half to hold responsible.
This answers when the movement view serves.
What to do now
Read the account books next to this number this week: who is carrying how many accounts, and which at-risk items sit with the most loaded seats. The team surface carries the books.
The ratio locates pressure but cannot place it: it is an average over the account team, and an overloaded director next to a coordinator with room reads the same as four balanced books. The books say where the load actually sits, and the movement above says whether the pressure is new income or a thinner team.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What stops it coming back
Staff the account team against target $400K to $500K, which is where this reading of $467k sits against today. When income per seat runs past the top of that band and stays there, that is the hiring signal, taken before retention pays for the delay.
The band exists because both directions cost money. Under it, account management is overstaffed for the book. Over it, seats are stretched, at-risk accounts wait, and the damage lands in retention two quarters later, where it is far more expensive than a hire. Treating the band as a staffing rule rather than a scoreboard is the structural fix.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What happens if this is ignored
A ratio left above its band means every account seat stays stretched: touchpoints slip, quiet accounts stay quiet, and renewal conversations start late. None of that appears on this tile. Where this lands is not this tile. It is Client retention reads 67% against floor 80%, which it is outside. It is already outside its band, so this is not a forecast. Part of it has happened, and that tile is where to go and look at it. Stretched account books do not fail on this tile. Touchpoints slip, quiet accounts stay quiet, renewal conversations start late, and the cost lands in retention, where it reads as a client-side surprise and was a staffing decision nobody made on time.
Is this target still telling you anything
Not answered here.
The window spans a measurement change, so its periods are not one series: compute path changed: demo-history-seed@1 to live-serving-rollup@3
How this metric is measured changed inside the period this section would look back over, so counting hits across it would be counting two different measurements as one. This fills in once the whole window sits on one basis.