Skip to content
Holding·last review28 Apr 2026

Across the named analyst-publication comparable set (Stratechery, The Information, the Substack analyst stack, the Big-4 research blogs, Gartner, Forrester, IDC) as of late April 2026, none maintains a public claim ledger — a tracked register of every primary claim with scheduled reviews, dated verdicts, and a public correction log. The absence is structural, not accidental, and explains why none of the category produces the kind of audit-able commentary the Holding-up system makes possible.

Build-log Issue 1. Names the comparable set per the editorial decision locked 28 Apr 2026 (1.A). Three review checks at 90 days: any comparable introduces tracked-claim mechanism, any vendor publication adds claim-tracking surface, or new entrant launches with ledger-as-default. None moved → Holds. Partial mechanism → Partial. Full equivalent → Not holding (and structural-distinction argument restates).

Published
28 Apr 2026
Last reviewed
28 Apr 2026
Next review
+45d· 27 Jul 2026
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.

Watch this claim

Email-me when AM-101's status, next review date, or correction log changes. One email per change. No newsletter subscription, no other mail.

The claim: Across the named analyst-publication comparable set (Stratechery, The Information, the Substack analyst stack, the Big-4 research blogs, Gartner, Forrester, IDC) as of late April 2026, none maintains a public claim ledger — a tracked register of every primary claim with scheduled reviews, dated verdicts, and a public correction log. The absence is structural, not accidental, and explains why none of the category produces the kind of audit-able commentary the Holding-up system makes possible.

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…

Referenced within Agent Mode AI by · 2 pieces