"Lost Its Luster" suggests we can point to a decline from peak. The basis for the article? According to the subhead, "In interviews, current and former employee

"Lost Its Luster" suggests we can point to a decline from peak. The basis for the article? According to the subhead, "In interviews, current and former employees..." Oh boy. The article lays out the high: "As recently as 2017, the retail arm was generating an estimated $5,500 in sales per square foot, easily outpacing rivals. But that’s getting harder to pull off." And the low? Not specified. That number could be higher or lower in 2019, we are not told. It turns out that a company employing hundreds of thousands of people has some disgruntled ex-employees who prefer the way things used to be. The writer suggests that this is the fault of the woman who ran the retail division until recently, not, say, monumental growth or a human propensity for empty nostalgia. I don't see any factual basis for the headlines anywhere in the article. Am I missing it?