{
  "version": "1.15.0",
  "releasedAt": "2026-07-17",
  "kpi": {
    "rogueId": "hr.in_jurisdiction_headcount",
    "slug": "in_jurisdiction_headcount",
    "domain": "hr",
    "defaultLabel": "In-jurisdiction headcount",
    "description": "Number of employees whose primary work location is inside the jurisdiction of a public funder at period end — the in-jurisdiction subset of `hr.total_headcount`. Reported by companies whose investor is accountable to a government mandate that is scoped to a geography: a US state fund (e.g. an SSBCI-funded state venture programme), a national programme, or an EU regional fund. For those funders, workforce inside the jurisdiction — not total headcount — is the figure the programme reports upward to its own funder. The jurisdiction itself is board-level context, not part of this definition: a board reporting to a Missouri fund labels this field \"MO-based jobs\", one reporting to an EU regional fund labels it for its region. STOCK, NOT FLOW: this is a point-in-time count, the in-jurisdiction analogue of `hr.total_headcount`, and it can never exceed it for the same period. It is NOT jobs created or retained over a period — those are separate flow metrics that a net change in this count cannot express (a company that hires 10 in-jurisdiction and loses 10 shows no change here while having created 10 jobs). Convention follows `hr.total_headcount` (FTE-equivalent, employees only, end-of-period) plus the primary-work-location test, which is the usual point of dispute: payroll-tax nexus, a registered address, and where a remote employee actually sits can all disagree. Fix the convention at the board level once and apply it consistently.",
    "fieldType": "number",
    "unit": null,
    "maturity": "general",
    "suggestedForStages": [
      "preSeed",
      "seed",
      "seriesA",
      "seriesB",
      "seriesC",
      "public"
    ],
    "defaultOwningFunctions": [
      "HR"
    ],
    "stageRelevance": {
      "preSeed": "core",
      "seed": "core",
      "seriesA": "core",
      "seriesB": "core",
      "seriesC": "core",
      "public": "core"
    },
    "definitionSource": {
      "tier": "editorial",
      "sourceName": "imboard Editorial",
      "sourceUrl": null,
      "sectionRef": null,
      "publicationDate": "2026-04-01",
      "attributionNotice": null,
      "authorityLevel": "imboard-editorial"
    },
    "formula": "Count of active employees whose primary work location is inside the funder's jurisdiction at period end, on the same FTE-equivalent, employees-only convention as `hr.total_headcount`. Contractors are excluded (they are tracked in `hr.total_contractors`) even when in-jurisdiction.",
    "whyItMatters": "For a publicly-funded investor, workforce inside the jurisdiction is the mandate — the number the programme is measured on and reports to its own funder. Total headcount can grow while in-jurisdiction employment stays flat (hiring remote or out-of-jurisdiction), which looks like progress on every other HR metric while the mandate quietly goes unmet. Tracking it beside total headcount makes that divergence visible.",
    "interpretationGuidance": "Read as a ratio to `hr.total_headcount`, not in isolation: a falling in-jurisdiction share alongside rising total headcount is the signal worth a board note, even when both numbers grow. No stage norms exist — the expected share is set by the programme's own mandate and any commitments made at investment, so compare against that commitment rather than a peer benchmark. Do not read this as jobs created: it is a snapshot of where people sit, not a count of hiring over the period.",
    "relatedKpiIds": [
      "hr.total_headcount",
      "hr.total_contractors",
      "hr.new_hires",
      "hr.in_jurisdiction_jobs_created",
      "hr.in_jurisdiction_jobs_retained"
    ],
    "metricBasis": {
      "timeBasis": "point_in_time",
      "production": "primary"
    }
  }
}