R5 — Disregard vendor BI "X% improvement" / "60-70% unused" stats in client conversations; cite BARC (~25%) and Gartner (~30%) adoption baselines

Rule: Do not cite vendor-sourced BI / dashboard improvement statistics ("31% retention increase," "27% churn drop," "60-70% unused," "72% abandon for spreadsheets," "45% BI usage") in client conversations or marketing copy. When a client raises one, surface the provenance.

Cite BARC ~25% / Gartner ~30% BI adoption (BARC / Eckerson Group (March 2022, 214 D&A leaders surveyed Nov-Dec 2021) — BI/analytics adoption at 25% of employees on average; "stuck around 20% for many years" per Eckerson, Gartner — "pervasive business intelligence remains elusive, with BI and analytics adoption at about 30% of all employees" (doc 3753469, Howson & Sallam)) as the independent baseline.

Why: CORRECTION: the viral "60-70% (or 60-80%) of dashboards go unused (Gartner)" stat cannot be traced to any named Gartner report — vendor folklore is folklore. "72% of users regularly abandon dashboards for spreadsheets" — Luzmo vendor-run State of Dashboards 2025 survey of ~200 SaaS/product leaders; "Dashboards: Dead, Dying or Evolving?" is vendor-run. "Only 45% of people with access to BI tools actually use them" — traces to Logi Analytics (BI vendor) report, not independent research is vendor-sourced. Citing these undermines Candid's credibility when a sophisticated buyer checks them.

How to apply:

• In client conversations, substitute BARC / Gartner adoption for the viral "graveyard" stat.
• Mirror calculator brief's R5 — Disregard vendor-sourced "interactive content converts better" statistics in client conversations and portal brief's R5 — Ignore portal retention-lift marketing entirely; verify efficiency claims against the actual SMB inbox — same vendor-skepticism muscle across all four briefs.