New-revenue ratio
What would helpThis is a problem on our side. It is being monitored and does not need action from you.
This is a problem on our side. It is being monitored and does not need action from you.
Where it stands
Monthly, up to the last 12 months
Why it is where it is
This accounts for what the accounts won this period have billed, 2 new accounts in all.
First engagement began on Jul 26, 2026. Billed $94k inside this window.
How this was measured: This account's FIRST engagement is dated inside the period, which is the same test the share itself runs on. The magnitude is what it has billed since, taken from the billing lines rather than from the ratio, so nothing here recomputes the percentage above.
First engagement began on Aug 5, 2026. Billed $43k inside this window.
How this was measured: This account's FIRST engagement is dated inside the period, which is the same test the share itself runs on. The magnitude is what it has billed since, taken from the billing lines rather than from the ratio, so nothing here recomputes the percentage above.
Each account appears once, and only accounts whose first engagement began inside the period appear at all. This is not the ratio taken apart: the share above divides new-client revenue by the period's growth, and a growth figure can be small enough to make one account look like the whole story. What is below is the accounts and what they billed, which is the part that survives that arithmetic. A client is on the book when an engagement covers the date. An engagement with no closing date is treated as still running, which is the one place an absent value is read permissively here.
What we checked, in order
We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.
There is no ruled order of checks for New-revenue ratio 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
This is a share, so it moves when either half moves, and the two halves mean opposite things. It rises when new logos land, which is the reading everybody assumes. It also rises when existing accounts stay flat or shrink, which is the same arithmetic and the opposite news, and it rises fastest of all when new business is replacing departures rather than adding to them. On this workspace the accounts won inside the period were Vaultline Fintech and Cedar and Co Realty, against 1 that left. So this share is being carried by real acquisition rather than by a book standing still, which is the reading it looks like and usually is not.
What to do now
Before adding to the sales push, check what the existing book did over the same period. If it was flat, this number is telling you about expansion rather than about acquisition.
This is the move that stops a high reading being read backwards. The ratio is a share, so pushing on the numerator is guaranteed to move it further in the direction that already looks wrong, and it costs several times more than the alternative. What the number is asking for is an expansion plan on the accounts you already hold, and there are 5 of those: the accounts that were on the book at the start of this period and are still on it. They are the cheapest revenue available to the firm and the least likely to be claimed, because nobody is measured on them.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What stops it coming back
Put a named expansion plan on the top accounts and review it on the same cadence as the pipeline. This share stays healthy when the existing book grows, and the existing book grows on purpose or not at all.
The structural version of a high reading is that acquisition has an owner and a process while expansion has neither, so growth arrives through the only door anybody is standing at. Selling more to a client who already trusts you is the cheapest revenue available to the firm, and it is also the revenue most likely to go unclaimed, because nobody is measured on it. Making it somebody's job is the change, and nothing in the product substitutes for that.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What happens if this is ignored
A ratio drifting upward is one of two stories and both of them cost money. If new logos really are outrunning the rest of the book, the firm is buying growth at the most expensive price available and the acquisition cost is buried in overhead where nobody reads it. If the book is flat and the share is rising on its own, the firm is replacing revenue while believing it is adding revenue, which is churn wearing a growth costume. The second is the common case, and it stays invisible until retention drops far enough to become its own headline.
Is this target still telling you anything
We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.
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.
Share of this period's revenue growth that came from newly acquired clients. This period's billings against the same length of time before it. The growth between them is the denominator, and the part of it billed to clients whose first engagement started inside this period is the numerator. When billings did not grow, there is no growth to divide and the tile says so instead of reporting a share of nothing.
About 70% of your growth should come from clients you already have, because selling more work to a client who trusts you is far cheaper than winning a stranger. This tile reads the other 30%: how much of the growth had to be bought with new logos. A book that only grows by adding names is a book whose existing accounts are standing still. It sits on this board against target under 30% of growth.
- Window
- Stated as of Oct 22, 2026. The period the reading covers is set by its source and is not stated on this tile.
- How it is counted
- This period's billings against the same length of time before it. The growth between them is the denominator, and the part of it billed to clients whose first engagement started inside this period is the numerator. When billings did not grow, there is no growth to divide and the tile says so instead of reporting a share of nothing.
- Source
- Financial ledger, as of Oct 22, 2026
- Drivers
- Reasoned from this metric's own definition and sources. The driver breakdown is not composed for this tile yet, and the section below says what it would take.