Your turnover is at 10%. Good news or bad news?
10% turnover rate, hires and exits combined, might just mean you're growing fast. Healthy rotation, nothing broken.
10% voluntary attrition, people leaving without you choosing it, is a completely different signal. Talent walking out the door you didn't see coming, for reasons you haven't diagnosed yet.
Same number, two opposite situations, two completely different problems to fix.
The metric you track is the problem you solve.
And that's not a detail, it's the whole game.
HR data is the most direct signal a company has on its own behavior: who stays, who leaves, why, when.
But a signal is only worth something if the definition behind it is airtight. An badly defined metric doesn't give you bad data. It gives you confident data pointing in the wrong direction, which is worse.
That's the wall every HR team hits when they try to operationalize their data. Not the model. The semantic layer underneath it.
At Reflect, turnover and involuntary attrition are separated explicitly. Documented formula, fixed perimeter, versioned over time. So when the number moves, you know if it's reality shifting.
An analyst who produces a wrong number eventually notices. An AI agent, never: it just keeps going, with confidence. The thing capping the quality of enterprise AI agents today isn't LLM performance anymore. It's the semantic layer.
Both are right. Except a turnover dashboard and a budget-forecast dashboard aren't talking about the same reality. And that's exactly the kind of detail an AI agent misses.
Discussions sur le futur de l'IA avec @oliviergodement, Head of Product d'@OpenAI , chez Hexa à Paris.
Fine-tuning = Ajuster les connexions neuronales
VS
RAG = Incorporer des données externes
So proud to release DUNK on @ProductHunt today! It’s now possible to get people together and live memorable experiences… take them to a secret destination 🤫 Thanks for the hunt @pollock : https://t.co/mMUaeBDVuh