The correct LOD expression fixes the calculation at the month level of the sign-up date and counts distinct customers. Option D does this correctly.
Option D fixes by purchase month, which is not the cohort definition.
Option D excludes customer ID incorrectly and counts sign-up dates, which is wrong.
Option D fixes by customer ID, which is not the cohort grouping.
A heatmap with cohorts as rows and months since sign-up as columns colored by retention count clearly shows retention patterns over time.
Pie charts and bar charts do not show retention over time per cohort.
Line charts with purchase dates show overall sales trends, not cohort retention.
Cohort analysis groups customers by shared starting points (like sign-up month) to observe how their behavior changes over time, which helps understand retention and lifecycle.
Options B, C, and D do not describe cohort analysis correctly.
Option A provides a normalized model linking transactions to customer info including sign-up date, enabling cohort grouping.
Option A duplicates data causing inefficiency.
Option A lacks relationships needed for analysis.
Option A lacks customer-level data needed for cohorts.
SUM([Repeat Purchases]) / COUNTD([Customer ID])But the retention rates are incorrect and inconsistent. What is the most likely cause?
SUM([Repeat Purchases]) / COUNTD([Customer ID])
The denominator must count only customers in the specific cohort month to calculate correct retention. Counting all customers inflates the denominator and skews rates.
Option B is incorrect because repeat purchases is numeric.
Option B is wrong because SUM is appropriate for counting repeat purchases.
Option B is incorrect because COUNTD counts unique customers, not purchases.