Actually, I do see where you’re getting the 3 from now, but I don’t get why you would want to use 3 as your denominator. For me, it’s most useful to know that, of the cars that weren’t properly repaired, what percentage of those had X,Y, and Z problems. Let’s pretend you’re the world’s worst mechanic. You “fix” ten cars and all ten are rejected. Every single one of the customers had an issue with the electrical, because you don’t know an ampere from an ohm. But the other cars came in with other problems. Two people also had exterior problems. Two had steering issues. Two had audio. Two had brakes. And two had heat. The common denominator is that you can’t do electrical for shit. Under your system, the numbers look like this:
Exterior: 10%
Steering: 10%
Audio: 10%
Heat: 10%
Brakes: 10%
Electrical: 50%
It still shows you have issues with Electrical, but it makes it seem like in all your failures, electrical issues were only an issue in half of them, when, in fact, this paints a more accurate pictures, IMHO:
Exterior: 20%
Steering: 20%
Audio: 20%
Heat: 20%
Brakes: 20%
Electrical: 100%
To me, that paints a more accurate picture of what’s going on.
Now, to a consumer, it probably would be even clearer if they used Zen Beam’s raw number method but, honestly, the only number I’m really looking at is the overall fix percentage.