Skip to content

R0007/2026-03-19/C003 — Assessment

BLUF

The statistic is real (82.53% of 229 samples with heavy right tails) but comes from the 2016 Aguinis et al. paper, not a 2014 follow-up as claimed.

Probability

Rating: Likely (55-80%)

Confidence in assessment: Medium

Confidence rationale: The 82.53% figure and 229 samples are confirmed in connection with the "Conductors and Insulators" paper. However, the PDF of this paper could not be fully extracted, and there is a possibility the 2014 "Star Performers" paper also references this statistic as preliminary findings.

Reasoning Chain

  1. Search for "82.5% of 229 samples" consistently returns the 2016 paper "Cumulative Advantage: Conductors and Insulators of Heavy-Tailed Productivity Distributions" [SRC01-E01, High, High].
  2. The 2014 paper "Star Performers in Twenty-First Century Organizations" is a conceptual/review paper that discusses the implications of power-law distributions but is not primarily an empirical study with new sample analyses [SRC01-E02, High, Medium].
  3. The exact figure 82.53% (rounded to 82.5% in the claim) and 229 samples are consistently associated with the 2016 publication [SRC01-E01, High, High].
  4. JUDGMENT: The claim conflates two different follow-up papers. The statistic is real but misattributed by year.

Evidence Base Summary

Source Description Reliability Relevance Key Finding
SRC01 Aguinis et al. (2016) High High 82.53% of 229 samples confirmed

Collection Synthesis

Dimension Assessment
Evidence quality Medium — PDF not fully extractable
Source agreement High — all references point to 2016 paper
Source independence Medium — multiple databases reference same paper
Outliers None

Detail

The evidence consistently associates the 229-sample/82.53% statistic with the 2016 paper rather than the 2014 paper. This is a minor misattribution of year rather than a fabrication.

Gaps

Missing Evidence Impact on Assessment
Full text of 2014 paper Cannot confirm whether it also contains this statistic
Full text of 2016 paper PDF extraction failed

Researcher Bias Check

Declared biases: None applicable.

Influence assessment: The researcher may have conflated the two follow-up papers in good faith.

Cross-References

Entity ID File
Hypotheses H1, H2, H3 hypotheses/
Sources SRC01 sources/
ACH Matrix ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit self-audit.md