Prior-Quarter ACV
The average contract value reported in the PRIOR period — the comparison anchor for the current `customers.avg_contract_value`. The board reads the two together to render the ACV trend chip on the bespoke customers card (delta + direction) without recomputing it. Common pitfall: comparing a prior new-logo ACV to a current blended-base ACV — keep the population definition identical across the two periods or the trend is an artifact. — Customers KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier)
No public third-party standard anchors this KPI yet, so I'mBoard authors and maintains the definition — transparently labeled as editorial tier. See the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system and the back-attribution workstream.
Rogue ID: customers.prior_quarter_acv
Type: Currency
Domain: Customers
Definition
The average contract value reported in the PRIOR period — the comparison anchor for the current customers.avg_contract_value. The board reads the two together to render the ACV trend chip on the bespoke customers card (delta + direction) without recomputing it. Common pitfall: comparing a prior new-logo ACV to a current blended-base ACV — keep the population definition identical across the two periods or the trend is an artifact.
Formula
ACV from the prior period, computed over the SAME population as the current `customers.avg_contract_value`. acv_trend ≈ (avg_contract_value − prior_quarter_acv) ÷ prior_quarter_acv.Why it matters
Lets the board read ACV direction at a glance — the single most useful framing of an ACV number is its own trajectory.
How to interpret
Only meaningful when the population definition matches the current-period ACV. A large jump usually reflects mix shift (a few large enterprise signings), not a uniform price increase.
Related KPIs
customers.avg_contract_valuecustomers.acv_trend_pctcustomers.total_customers
Source
I'mBoard editorial — authored and maintained by I'mBoard, first published 2026-04-01. No third-party standard is cited for this KPI; when one emerges, the definition is back-attributed and promoted to the published tier (a minor version bump). Read the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system, attribution rules, and dispute process.
Stage relevance
| Company stage | Priority |
|---|---|
| Pre-Seed | Core |
| Seed | Core |
| Series A | Core |
| Series B | Core |
| Series C+ | Core |
| Public | Core |
Suggested for stages: Pre-Seed, Seed, Series A, Series B, Series C+, Public.
Default owning functions
- Sales
- Finance
Machine-readable
- This KPI as JSON:
/api/ontology/customers/prior_quarter_acv.json - All Customers KPIs:
/api/ontology/customers.json - Full catalog:
/api/ontology/index.json
% ARR at Risk
Share of total ARR flagged as at-risk for churn or contraction — the proportional view that complements the absolute `arr_at_risk` dollar figure. Computed as `arr_at_risk ÷ total ARR`. The board reads this as the worst-case-near-term-NRR-impact ceiling: if every at-risk account actually churned in-period, NRR would drop by roughly this percentage (before expansion offset). Common pitfall: the "at-risk" definition is internal and varies by company — a 12% percent_arr_at_risk under a conservative flagging rule is a very different signal than 12% under an aggressive rule. Document the flag rule and hold it constant. — Customers KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
Prior-Quarter Concentration
The top-customer ARR concentration reported in the PRIOR period — the comparison anchor for the current `customers.top_customer_concentration`. The board reads the two together to render the concentration trend on the bespoke customers card (rising concentration = growing single-account dependency risk). Common pitfall: comparing a top-1 concentration to a top-5 concentration across periods — keep the "top-N" cut identical. — Customers KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).