Any article that claims to be "dissecting" her compensation and then doesn't detail her prices for her option grants and how much she made from each specificall

Any article that claims to be "dissecting" her compensation and then doesn't detail her prices for her option grants and how much she made from each specifically and how much she made from her restricted stock, isn't "dissecting" squat. In reality she got options for a bunch of shares. The stock tripled, making her hundreds of millions of dollars. If the stock had gone down or just not gone up, she would have made far far less (basically just salary plus value of the restricted stock grant). Whether she deserves credit for that, or whether option grants are even a good mechanism for rewarding CEOs, is an entirely different conversation (answers are she deserves some credit and no). But she was never paid $900K a week. As of today she can make $900K a week if she sold all her shares right now. But until she cashes out her shares that amount changes daily. Next week her estimated earnings could easily be down to $700K a week, a year from now they could be nearly wiped out. "Dissecting" option grant valuations in detail would also have been interesting. For example her original option grant was valued at $21M. That means that based over the length of the grant, with a reasonable expected stock price increase (say 8% per year), compensation consultants estimated that she'd profit $21M. So how many shares, at what price, add up to that valuation? Why was that reasonable? I understand she walked away from a huge amount of compensation she was owed at Google to take the Yahoo job, and the board had to compensate her for that. But how much of that was reasonable? "Dissection" of it by a journalist should include details of that compensation, how the amount was determined, and quotes from those who had opposing viewpoints at the time.