Churn has risen among customers who look identical on every attribute you record. Interviews surface two groups: teams that grew past the point where a single shared inbox worked, and sole traders whose accountant began asking for exports the product cannot produce. What does a jobs lens make of this?

The principle — one churn number can be two jobs, and averaging them produces a fix that helps neither group.

Why the key is correct — the lens reveals Jobs to Be Done is a lens that reveals the circumstances—or forces—that drive people and organizations toward and away from decisions. Both directions are in the definition, so leaving is squarely inside its scope. Here the recorded attributes are identical and the circumstances are not: one group's team crossed a size where a shared inbox stops working, and the other's accountant introduced an obligation the product cannot meet. Those are two different accounts of progress no longer being made, and People don’t simply buy or pick products or services; they pull them into their lives to make progress. means each group pulled the product in for something the product has now stopped delivering. Treating them as one number produces a roadmap that splits the difference and resolves neither.

Why the others are wrong — collapsing both into a single interface problem flattens two unrelated situations into one backlog item, when one group has outgrown a model that still suits the other perfectly well. Taking the export request as the finding elevates a solution one group imagined, and it explains nothing at all about the teams that grew. And ruling churn outside the lens contradicts the definition, which names forces toward and away from decisions in the same clause.

Remember this — when identical customers churn for different reasons, you are looking at two jobs, not one.

Sources — the Clayton Christensen Institute on Jobs to Be Done.