Four figures appear across these pages. This page gives each one its dataset, its observation window, the population it was computed over, the formula behind it, and — more usefully — what it does not establish.
A figure is only useful if its limits travel with it. These are the ones that matter, stated plainly rather than buried.
The coaching agreements preclude disclosing engagement detail to a third party. An external auditor would need exactly what those agreements protect — who was coached, at which employer, into which role, at what compensation.
So the absence of an external audit here is a consequence of the confidentiality terms, not an unwillingness to be checked. The definitions above are published in full precisely because the underlying records cannot be. The First Discipline applies: no coaching client is named anywhere, ever.
Three figures previously published here have been removed rather than defended. A “35% faster time-to-impact than open-ended coaching arrangements” comparison was withdrawn because no comparison group, method or window supported it. A 92% repeat-client ratio was withdrawn because it had not been given a definition precise enough to publish. And a 60% of engagements via Fortune 500 referral share was withdrawn in September 2026 for the same reason as the second: no definition was ever fixed for what counted as a referral, over what window, or against which denominator — and a number nobody can restate is not evidence, however true it may feel to the person who lived it.
Separately, a median time from kickoff to promotion was published until October 2026 and is no longer quoted. It was not found wrong; it describes mostly senior-leadership promotions and will move as the cohort grows, and a figure that keeps moving is better retired than restated.
Both are recorded here rather than quietly deleted. A methodology page that only lists surviving claims is not a methodology page.