Thanks! I appreciate that you bothered at all to respond to my many-days-later comment. :) I'm glad you've respectively had good luck in this regard. I should

Thanks! I appreciate that you bothered at all to respond to my many-days-later comment. :) I'm glad you've respectively had good luck in this regard. I should be clear that I'm not speaking in particular about a present or past employer, nor do I really mean to denigrate businesses operating as I described. My rhetorical cynicism might be misread as just cynicism, so I'd like to try again, hopefully more charitably: Not many top decision makers are (or closely employ) good stats people. So pretty optimistic non-stats folks try to figure out what to measure, how to measure it, what is meaningful, and how to extrapolate that into good forecasts -- not a great start for accurate measurement and forecasting. Next, data is often bad: because of adblockers, brief app outages, known workarounds, bugs, gaps, measurement-method changes over time, differing cohort assumptions, etc. There always ends up being some hand waving. Another strike against accurate measurement and forecasting. Finally, businesses must survive, and many are not cash-rich enough for safety or for growth, so in the near term they may be oriented more toward investment than revenue. Some good hand waving can then be the essential survival activity, and good hand-waving may require treating some fictions as real. The dreaded third strike falls against accurate measurement and forecasts. So in a sense, these aren't traditional businesses. Their measurements and forecasts may not be very accurate, but for now it doesn't really matter. What matters more is usually the story.