Skip to content
Not holding·last review28 Apr 2026

The 171% average ROI on enterprise agentic-AI deployments is the mean of a bimodal distribution — roughly 12% of deployments clear 300%+ and 88% sit at or below break-even. The single factor distinguishing the clusters is not a multi-pattern framework; it is whether business-line (not IT) ownership held the kill-switch and accountability before the deployment shipped.

Note hygiene 10 Jun 2026 (claim already Not holding since 28 Apr 2026): the bimodal 12/88 segmentation this claim attributed to the Stanford DEL 2026 playbook failed primary-source verification — the playbook studies 51 successful deployments and contains no ROI distribution (see AM-029 correction, 10 Jun 2026). Verified anchors that remain on the record: OneReach 171% average + Futurum 71% median productivity vs 40% high-automation, Gartner 28%-pay-off finding. The claim text retains its original wording as the immutable historical record. No further reviews scheduled.

Published
06 Aug 2025
Last reviewed
28 Apr 2026
Next review

Correction log

  1. 19 Apr 2026Body rewritten from WP-era slop (7-patterns vendor framework with fabricated case studies). New thesis: bimodal distribution, not normal — the 171% average describes no specific deployment. Business-line kill-switch ownership is the single distinguishing factor. Cross-links to AM-020 + AM-021 on the shared organisational-precondition thread.
  2. 28 Apr 2026Article retracted 28 Apr 2026. Slug carries '171% ROI' as a category average and a '7 proven patterns' framework that the body had to disown — the rewritten body explicitly argues 171% is the mean of a bimodal distribution, not a benchmark. Body rewritten 19 Apr 2026 (preserved in archived/) but the slug contradicts the rewritten thesis and Google has rejected the URL. URL now redirects to /retractions/?retired=the-agentic-ai-success-formula-7-proven-patterns-driving-171-roi-in-enterprise-deployments. Claim withdrawn — status moves to Not holding, no further reviews scheduled.
Embed this claimiframe + oEmbed
HTML iframe
Paste-the-URL (Substack, Medium, Notion, WordPress)

The card auto-updates when the claim's status, last-reviewed date, or correction log changes. Embedders never need to refresh — the card is rendered live from the canonical record.

About this register

The Reporting register tracks claims published from articles addressed to senior enterprise IT leaders — CIOs, IT directors, heads of platform. Claims are reviewed on a 30–90 day cadence; each review either reaffirms the claim, marks one substantive part as Partial, or marks it Not holding once the underlying evidence has been overtaken.

Recent corrections in Reporting

  • AM-132 · Partial · 10 Jun 2026

    One of four legs unanchored on re-review. The claim text attributes '12% of deployments clearing 300%+ ROI with 88% at or below break-even at 12-18 months' to the Stanford DEL 2026 Enterprise AI Playbook. Full-text verification on 10 Jun 2026 found no such figure in that source: the playbook (Pereira, Graylin, Brynjolfsson, Apr 2026) studies 51 successful deployments by design and contains no ROI distribution, no 300%-plus cohort, and no break-even measurement point (full finding at AM-029, correction of 10 Jun 2026). The only verified figure carrying the same 12/88 numerals is IDC research with Lenovo (via CIO.com, Mar 2025): roughly 88% of AI proof-of-concepts never reach production and roughly 12% graduate — a pilot-to-production graduation metric, not an ROI distribution. The Gartner 28%, McKinsey 23%/17%, and MIT NANDA 95% legs verify; they support a small high-performing tail and a large struggling body, but none documents the two-peak bimodal shape the claim asserts. Status Up -> Partial.

  • AM-129 · Partial · 10 Jun 2026

    One of three read-against anchors unanchored on re-review. The claim text cites 'Stanford Digital Economy Lab Enterprise AI Playbook (12/88 bimodal ROI distribution at 12-18 months)' and frames the realistic ROI band around 'the highest-discipline 12% cohort'. Full-text verification on 10 Jun 2026 found the playbook contains no 12/88 distribution, no bimodal ROI shape, and no 12-18-month ROI measurement point (full finding at AM-029, correction of 10 Jun 2026). The claim's core negative finding — no mid-market enterprise has produced a documented +240% ROI in 90 days under audited conditions — is unaffected; the McKinsey State of AI 2025 and MIT NANDA legs verify and continue to support it. The '12% cohort' framing has no verifiable referent. The only verified figure carrying the 12/88 numerals is IDC's pilot-graduation finding (roughly 88% of AI proof-of-concepts never reach production; via CIO.com, Mar 2025), a different metric. Status Up -> Partial.

  • AM-201 · Partial · 10 Jun 2026

    One of four named datasets unanchored on review. The claim text names 'Stanford DEL's 12% clearing 300%+ ROI vs 88% at or below break-even' as one of four independent datasets. Full-text verification on 10 Jun 2026 found the Stanford DEL Enterprise AI Playbook contains no such distribution — it studies 51 successful deployments by design and carries no ROI-realisation failure data (full finding at AM-029, correction of 10 Jun 2026). The McKinsey (23% scaling, 17% EBIT-attribution), Gartner (28% fully paying off), and MIT NANDA (95% no measurable P&L impact) datasets verify; the claim's spine stands on three datasets rather than four. The only verified figure carrying the 12/88 numerals is IDC's pilot-graduation finding (roughly 88% of AI proof-of-concepts never reach production; via CIO.com, Mar 2025), a different metric from an ROI distribution. Status Up -> Partial.

Reviews coming up in Reporting

  • AM-063 · Holding · next +15d (27 Jun 2026)

    AI agents executing financial transactions need a four-control bundle (action-approval gates by blast radius, kill-swit…

  • AM-061 · Holding · next +15d (27 Jun 2026)

    Production agentic-AI costs at scale routinely run multiples of POC projections, and a layered optimisation programme c…

  • AM-003 · Partial · next +15d (27 Jun 2026)

    GPT-5 Pro's tiered-subscription model forces enterprises to classify problems by computational difficulty — $200/month…