Practice — Hot · The Trade Program on Trial

Scenario

Lantern & Pine's Interior Trade program gives professional designers 15–20% discounts. At the quarterly review, the program's sponsor defends the budget:

"Trade customers are pros furnishing whole rooms — they place bigger orders, and the discount is what wins that volume. Deepen it and we will see even bigger baskets."

The CFO turns to you: "The model has segments now. Is that true?"

Requirements

1. Interrogate "bigger orders." The claim is ambiguous the way "average revenue" was: bigger in revenue per order, or bigger in units per order? Build a segment table with the measures that answer both readings. (Your family has AOV already; basket size by segment needs nothing new either — think about why.)
2. Price the discount. Add Gross Margin % to the segment table. What does the trade discount cost the company in margin, in points, versus Consumer?
3. Steelman the program. Before writing your verdict, find the strongest true fact the data offers in the program's favor. (Hint: look at totals, not per-order figures.)
4. Write the verdict — four to six sentences for the CFO: is the claim true under either reading, what does the discount cost, what the program still delivers, and what you would want to know before deepening the discount.

Reflection

• The sponsor's claim contained the same ambiguity as Lesson 5's "average revenue" — and resolving it changed the answer. What phrase in any future stakeholder request should now trigger the same reflex?
• Your segment table was built entirely from existing measures dropped against a new dimension. What does that say about where the week's real work happened?