```xml <result> <column_name>Churn Score</column_name> <family>additive</family> <subtype>intensive_additive</subtype> <confidence>0.85</confidence> <requires_user_confirmation>false</requires_user_confirmation> <sum_meaningful>false</sum_meaningful> <signed>false</signed> <reducers> <primary_reducer>mean</primary_reducer> <valid_reducers>mean, min, max, median, distribution</valid_reducers> <excluded_reducers>sum (summing scores across entities is meaningless), product (not a ratio)</excluded_reducers> <average_semantics>arithmetic_mean</average_semantics> </reducers> <inner_outer_measure> <inner_measure_reducer>min</inner_measure_reducer> <outer_measure_reducer>max</outer_measure_reducer> </inner_outer_measure> <multiplicative_partner_derivable>false</multiplicative_partner_derivable> <reasoning> Table type is DIMENSION with no sequence axis, making multiplicative highly implausible. The column name "Churn Score" indicates a computed risk/propensity metric, which is an intensive level (like a rating or index value) rather than an extensive quantity. The range [5.0, 96.0] with sample values 20-24 shows this is a bounded score scale centered away from both 0 and 1, not a ratio. Summing churn scores across customers is meaningless; averaging them to get a population-level risk metric is the natural aggregation. This is clearly intensive_additive. </reasoning> <table_type_conflict>false</table_type_conflict> </result> ```