Hypothetical on purposeThe split below is an invented plan for illustration. Google has never published an ideal ratio, and no tool tells you the true safe figure. Use it as a shape to argue with, not a target to hit.
Why that shape and not another
Brand and URL anchors make up most of the plan, because that is how people tend to cite a company in running text. Editors link names.
Exact-match anchors are the ones Penguin made famous in 2012. They still matter. Penguin 4.0 in September 2016 moved the same signals into real-time scoring, and one in ten is a cautious ceiling in this example. Another marketer would say two in ten, and neither of you can prove the point.
The plan also fits the number of pages. If your ten articles point at three different target pages, the exact-match slot belongs on the page that most needs it.
Three adjustments before you copy the table
Your site is not Acme Payroll. A brand with a long, odd name earns more exact-brand anchors naturally, while a site called after its service attracts descriptive ones.
First, check what you already have. A site with 300 existing links, mostly brand and URL, can take more partial-match anchors than a site with 12. Second, count by target page as well as by domain, since a single product page carrying every exact anchor stands out. Third, let the host's sentence overrule the plan whenever the plan would force an awkward phrase.
Placements are permanent, so the plan is the cheap place to change your mind. Write it in a sheet before you open the brief template, and reread it after the third order.
Tools disagree. Each one labels anchors in its own way, which is worth knowing early. Ahrefs, Semrush and Majestic each draw the line between brand and partial match in their own way, so compare month against month in one tool, never across two. Keep a note of the export date and of which tool made it.
For wording you can use in each bucket, see the placement tree. For hosts that deserve the exact-match slot, run the scorecard first.