The MIT NANDA 'GenAI Divide' 95% pilot-failure statistic (August 2025) is widely cited in 2026 enterprise procurement decks as evidence that 95% of AI projects fail. The underlying methodology measures something narrower and more specific: 95% of 300 analysed AI projects delivered no measurable P&L impact, where 'no measurable impact' is largely a function of pilots not having documented pre-deployment baselines, not a function of pilots failing technically. The structurally interesting findings underneath the headline (build-vs-buy 67%-vs-22% spread, 40%-licensed / 90%-shadow-using gap, marketing-vs-back-end deployment misdirection, the static-error / learning-gap pattern) are more useful for procurement teams than the headline number, and they update against the Stanford 12/88 bimodal ROI distribution (claim AM-029) cleanly.

Third piece in the stat-correction cluster after the McKinsey 17% EBIT claim and the McKinsey 23%/39% scaling-gap piece. Verified primary sources: MIT NANDA 'The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025' (mlq.ai PDF carrying the deck); Fortune coverage 18 Aug 2025 (cover story) and 21 Aug 2025 (the methodological caveat-quote about NANDA's institutional incentive). Methodology: 150 executive interviews + 350 employee surveys + 300 AI projects analysed; the 95% applies to the 300-project layer specifically. Editorial finding: the 95% slippage in citation is structurally identical to the McKinsey 17% slippage but in the opposite direction (self-reported absence-of-measurement read as audited failure). Cluster fit: same shape as the existing two McKinsey-correction pieces. GSC-driven decision context (May 2026): the McKinsey-cluster query family was the publication's strongest organic surface (~70 imp/week at first-page positions); adding a third cluster piece doubles down on the search-intent the publication is already winning impressions for. Cadence 60-day. Trigger conditions: NANDA Q1 2026 follow-up report, named enterprise GenAI ROI audits with documented baselines that contradict or confirm the 95%, methodological pushback from other research organisations.