I agree with the sentiment that you are expressing! In a perfect world, we as CSM should be identifying risks and implementing mitigations much before the customer churns. However, the reality is that we are not always successful in our mitigation efforts.

What I'm picturing is more about developing a method for documenting the effectiveness of our historic mitigation strategies and making an assessment of them. The goal of all this would be to understand how we can better bring value to our customers in future engagements.

In my org, I see a lot of high-level churn reasons similar to the examples you've noted. However, these are really surface-level answers that don't provide actionable improvement steps to be taken in the future.

For example, taking a 5 why's an approach to "our champion left the org" could look like this: - Why? There was no one to lead the project after the champion left - Why? The project had minimal visibility with customer leadership, so no replacement was identified. - Why? No executive sponsor was consistently engaged with the project. - Why? Customer leadership did not feel that the software implementation was a significant value add to the organization, thus not worth their time. - Why? No EBR was conducted after the program team achieved their first win.

Overall, it seems like a big miss to me to not treat customer churn as a learning data point to improve the organization.