As far as I know, the Card Retrievability graph is more or less set in stone.
It’s a bit a shame knowing that the 0-70% range is I think, most of the time, useless, and having all the cards in buckets of 5% doesn’t give much information.
Could be interesting to limit the domain to subranges like [Desired Retention,100], [Min R, 100], or even a simple [70,100] with predefined steps. But right now [0,100] just feel useless
[Min R, 100] makes the most sense.
To me, having the graph be different every time you look at it would be aggravating. The Stats graphs are useful for at-a-glance, visual comparison. Changing the scale by happenstance makes them harder to use.
I’m also not sure how more granularity would be productive on this graph. If you need specifics, you’ll have to search in Browse anyway. Why not just get that there?
It’s not useless though. That’s where overdue cards will show up!
Overdue cards make more sense to be checked in a time-relative graph, like “Future Due”. In this view, with a DR of 83%, how do I even know what is in [80,85] but <83% or >83 ? It’s not the goal.
Changing scale based on data is precisely how all the others graphs function. You just don’t arbitrary decide “Reviews” y-axis will be “500 max” if the user is doing 50 reviews/days.
What kind of at-a-glance, visual comparison do you get by having for DR=83%, three bars relatively similar and a fourth one only representing the fact that my DR is somewhere in between ? Moreso, DR might be different for different decks and that view is not meant to be deck-specific, so right you can’t really anything out of it.
In ideal world, a better representation would be some kind of heatmap showing both the Retrieavibility distribution AND the Stability repartition, to see if your 95-100% are not just full of very low stability one. But this would require additional modifications, which would not really be quick-wins.
You get the rough distribution of your cards between 83% and 100% – which is where they should be. It tells you more than your avg. R of 92%, but that is useful too. Those 2 things combined tell you that your R is on track with your expectations.
It also tells you that you have some R-below-80 and below-60 cards that you might want to look into. [Your new screenshot helpfully demonstrates the utility of that 0-70 range.] Are those faster-falling shorter-interval cards? Siblings delayed due to burying? Or cards that have been missed somehow and need to be studied?
But still – there’s nothing you can do here except for knowing they exist. If you’re concerned about that partial bar at 80-85 – click it. Sort the Browse window by R to see what’s below 83.
Stats certainly is meant to be deck-specific.
Holy graph ! You’re too kind for this world 
