> No reasonable reading of that makes it a "22% success rate". Well, 500/2300 is 22%, so calling it 22% seems pretty reasonable. From what I get from the rest

> No reasonable reading of that makes it a "22% success rate". Well, 500/2300 is 22%, so calling it 22% seems pretty reasonable. From what I get from the rest, the 78% remaining tests (the ones that failed to convert) were "80% accurately converted", I guess they had some metric for measuring that. So it looks like it depends on how you interpret "automatically converted 80%". If it's taken to mean "80% could be used without manual intervention", then it's clearly false. If you take it to mean "it required manual intervention on just 20% of the contents to be usable", then it's reasonable.