Tier T1 · Config Usage
Configuration — is the platform's config carrying its weight?
Every configured attribute field, measured by how often it actually holds data — so dead and sparse config, mixed representations, and duplicate field names surface as evidence, not opinion.
How to read this page
What this measures
Fill rate of every configured attribute field across the book, plus structural defects (mixed value representations, duplicate field names).
How to read it
Fields bucket by how populated they are — core (well used), moderate, sparse, and dead (never populated). Dead + sparse are highlighted.
Why it matters
Dead and sparse config is friction: it clutters forms, confuses users, and hides the fields that carry the real signal.
Watch for
A field can be legitimately dead (deprecated, or for a work type you do not run). The count is a review queue, not a delete list.
The evidence
Findings
| Severity | Finding & evidence | Metric |
|---|---|---|
| high | 1 attribute stores values two different ways at once (a literal boolean AND a numeric option-set code).Evidence ( | 1 |
| medium | 95 of 287 attribute fields are never populated (0% fill rate).Evidence ( | 95 |
| medium | 5 logical field names are stored under 10 distinct raw keys.Evidence ( | 5 |
| low | 94 fields are populated in fewer than 5% of work items.Evidence ( | 94 |
| info | 19 fields carry meaningful data (>= 50% fill rate).Evidence ( | 19 |
Health methodology (disclosed)
Domain score: 38.9/100 — weighted band average (green=1, amber=0.5, red=0), full inputs below.
| Indicator | Value | Band | Green | Amber | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dead Field Ratio | 0.331 | amber | 0.1 | 0.4 | 2.0 |
| Mixed Representation Ratio | 0.003 | amber | 0.0 | 0.01 | 1.5 |
| Duplicate Field Name Ratio | 0.017 | red | 0.0 | 0.015 | 1.0 |