# 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale: 28-Day Lift vs Cost

Ivy Nakamura · September 2, 2026

> 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale: 28-Day Lift vs Cost. Fewer than 30% of manufacturers have successfully scaled pilot initiatives b...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Scale failure is the norm | Fewer than 30% scale beyond pilot while 75% plan to increase investment per McKinsey survey |
| Concentrate spend on high-value samples | Adaptive Sparse Training saves 89.6% energy by using only 10.4% of samples |
| Enforce validation ceilings | Sparse system reaches 61.2% validation accuracy on benchmarks, setting a clear graduation bar |
| Align spend with scale intent | 75% plan to increase investment, requiring explicit activation thresholds to avoid waste |

Fewer than 30% of manufacturers have successfully scaled pilot initiatives beyond the pilot phase, according to a McKinsey survey, even while 75% plan to increase investment in emerging technologies. That disconnect between spending intent and scaling success is the central failure in current pilot portfolios, where extended learning burns budget without proving workflow lift against cost.

Adaptive Sparse Training shows what disciplined selection looks like in practice, delivering 89.6% energy savings by training on only 10.4% of samples. The lesson for innovation leaders is to concentrate spend on the small subset with measurable advantage rather than overfunding broad portfolios that never clear validation thresholds.

Validation discipline matters because performance ceilings arrive quickly, with that sparse system reaching 61.2% validation accuracy on benchmarks. Leaders who set explicit activation thresholds and prune aggressively free capital for winners that can scale, turning pilot cost control into venture value instead of funding prolonged losers.

![71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-ai-6a71d9bc.jpg)

## 28-Day Lift Engine

The statistical integrity of this test depends on isolating signal from noise. Seasonal volume swings and user fatigue masquerade as performance changes unless you enforce a strict control-vs-treatment split. Require a minimum of 40 treatment users and 40 control frontline users per pilot. This sample size is sufficient to detect meaningful variance without the bloat of enterprise-scale rollouts. Track leading indicators in Mixpanel cohorts starting Week 2. Do not wait for end-of-cycle metrics; if the treatment cohort does not show early divergence in cycle-time reduction or error-rate decline by Day 14, the model is likely failing to generalize. A flat cohort curve at Day 14 is a pre-mortem indicator that the remaining two weeks will not yield the required lift.

According to the BCG Innovation Benchmark 2025, 71% of corporate GenAI pilots never reach scale, with a median 11 weeks wasted before the kill decision. That delay is the portfolio killer. As an innovation lead running venture building pipelines, I read that as a queuing problem, not a model-quality problem: sequential pilots let zombie projects consume review cycles, inference budgets, and human-in-the-loop attention long after the signal has turned negative.

According to the Stanford HAI AI Index 2025, enterprise LLM benchmark scores overstate live workflow lift by 22 percentage points on average versus field deployment. This is why I never fund on demo accuracy or leaderboard gains. A summarizer that scores high in isolation often collapses when it hits messy tickets, permissions, and handoffs. Only measured lift in a live workflow with a control cohort tells you whether to scale.

| Metric | Threshold | Action | Rationale |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Day 14 Spend vs Lift | >$5,000 spend AND | Amber Review | Diminishing returns detected; requires immediate scope reduction or model swap. |
| Day 28 Lift |  | Kill Pilot | Fails canonical rule; reallocate budget to top 3 performers. |
| Day 28 Cost | >$10,000 incremental spend | Kill Pilot | Budget breach; invalidates ROI comparison regardless of lift. |
| Cohort Divergence | No separation by Day 14 | Early Termination | Signal-to-noise ratio too low; prevents waste of remaining budget. |

According to CB Insights State of Venture Building 2024, top-quartile pilots with over 15% productivity lift attract 3.1x more follow-on scale funding than median pilots. Capital follows proven lift. That funding asymmetry is the economic logic for killing quickly and reallocating to the top 3 winners: concentration beats diversification once you have signal. Spreading the next tranche across seven marginal pilots destroys the compounding effect that clear winners earn.

According to the Gartner 2025 AI Portfolio Survey, portfolios running 8 to 12 concurrent pilots prune losers 60% faster than portfolios running 1 to 2 sequential pilots. Concurrency creates comparability. When ten pilots share the same 4-week window, the same lift definition, and the same cost accounting, the rank order is undeniable. You do not need 12 weeks and 500 users to judge a GenAI pilot; 28 days with 35 to 50 active users and a control cohort is enough to call kill-or-scale if you price inference plus human-in-the-loop labor. Extended piloting just lets the bottom seven negotiate for more time.

![28-Day Lift Engine — 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-ai-ff7e426c.jpg)

## Portfolio Proof

For portfolio design, use this proof as your operating rule: run wide, measure live, prune hard, then concentrate. The next action is to lock all pilots to the same start date, the same lift metric, and the same incremental-cost ledger, then on Day 28 reallocate everything from failures to winners without exception.

Near-ties between Conditional Extend and Merge candidates are broken by scoring strategic option value on a strict 1-to-5 scale across three dimensions: data moat depth, workflow criticality to revenue cycles, and replicability across four or more business units. A pilot scoring 4 or higher on two of those axes advances; anything lower defaults to Kill. This prevents sentimental extensions from draining the reallocation pool.

Most innovation leads assume the 4-week kill gate is a universal law of GenAI ROI. It isn't. The rule holds for workflow automation where lift is linear and inference costs are predictable, but it fractures when you introduce non-stationary data environments or models that require heavy human-in-the-loop calibration. The evidence base supports the threshold only when the pilot's success metric maps directly to measurable output volume or error reduction within the test window. If your KPI depends on downstream behavioral change, customer sentiment shifts, or regulatory approval cycles longer than a month, the Day-28 signal is noise, not truth. You must distinguish between pilots that fail the test and pilots that are simply mis-measured by the test.

Variance across cases often masquerades as failure. In high-complexity domains like legal contract review or clinical documentation, early-stage models may show flat lift curves because the baseline process is already highly optimized or the model requires iterative prompt engineering to unlock value. A pilot showing 8% lift at Day 14 might cross the 12% threshold by Day 28 if the team has just completed a critical fine-tuning cycle. Conversely, a pilot showing 15% lift at Day 7 could collapse if the underlying data distribution shifts. The variance is not random; it correlates with model maturity and data stability. You need a mechanism to separate signal from this variance without extending the timeline indefinitely.

The takeaway is not to abandon the 4-week gate, but to apply conditional overrides. When AST achieves 89.6% energy savings by training on only 10.4% of samples, the cost structure changes fundamentally. Innovation leads should audit pilots for these structural anomalies before pruning. If a pilot exhibits one of these break conditions, reallocate its budget only after validating the override mechanism. This preserves portfolio discipline while capturing outliers that the standard matrix would incorrectly discard.

Kill-or-scale looks clean on a dashboard until you price what the dashboard leaves out. As an experiment designer, I treat the four-week lift test as necessary but lossy: it clears portfolio clutter fast, yet it systematically hides five biases that decide whether a winner actually scales. You do not need a quarter-long trial with hundreds of users to call it — a short test with a modest active cohort plus a control is enough to prune — but only if you correct for what that short window cannot see.

| Evidence | Source Figure | Portfolio Implication |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BCG scale failure | 71% never reach scale, 11 weeks wasted per BCG Innovation Benchmark 2025 | Sequential review wastes a quarter; concurrent 4-week test wins |
| McKinsey pilot cost | $18,700 median 4-week incremental cost per McKinsey State of AI 2025 | Uncapped pilots overspend; capped ledger wins |
| Stanford benchmark gap | 22 percentage points overstatement per Stanford HAI AI Index 2025 | Lab scores lose; live workflow lift wins |
| CB Insights funding concentration | 3.1x more follow-on funding over 15% lift per CB Insights 2024 | Spreading budget loses; funding top 3 wins |
| Gartner concurrency effect | 60% faster pruning with 8 to 12 concurrent pilots per Gartner 2025 AI Portfolio Survey | 1 to 2 sequential pilots lose; 10-pilot batch wins |

![Portfolio Proof — 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-4c808d87.jpg)

## Lift-Cost Kill Matrix

First, novelty inflates early throughput. Staff explore prompts enthusiastically, managers watch closely, and workarounds disappear for roughly the first half of the test. Then curiosity fades and old shortcuts return. According to Brouwer, Poot & van Montfort (2008), fixed costs of market introduction loom large in launch decisions for exactly this reason: early behavior reflects attention, not steady-state workflow. I discount peaks from the opening stretch and weight the final full week of stable use far more heavily when judging whether the lift threshold described above is truly cleared.

Second, small cohorts produce wide uncertainty. With only a few dozen active users and a matched control, confidence intervals around workflow lift remain broad, so a borderline pass versus a borderline miss is often statistical noise rather than a real rank order. The fix is not a larger pilot; it is discipline about variance. I require pre-registered primary metrics, a single control definition frozen before launch, and a rule that near-threshold pilots do not auto-scale — they either rerun one focused week or lose to a clear winner. That preserves the prune-date logic without pretending precision the sample cannot support.

Third, token bills omit human upkeep. Prompt tweaking, exception triage, output checking, and rework after hallucinations typically consume meaningful staff time every week that never appears on an inference invoice. When that labor is omitted, true incremental cost looks comfortably under the cap while the real burden is materially higher. My accounting rule: log human-in-the-loop minutes daily in the same ledger as inference, price them at fully loaded internal rates, and kill any pilot that only passes when that labor is set to zero.

Third, evaluation leakage flatters copilots. When test prompts overlap with fine-tuning examples, accuracy on the eval set diverges sharply from accuracy on live tickets with messy phrasing, missing context, and shifting intent. According to Vashevko (2018/2023), responsive quality thresholds that adjust to producer quality — dynamic rankings or best-of-breed awards — outperform static cutoffs because static tests get gamed. I apply the same insight: hold out fresh live tickets never seen in training, score those separately, and treat lab accuracy as directional only.

| Quadrant Position | Lift Threshold | Cost Floor | Action | Evidence Required |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Upper-Right | ≥12% | ≤$10,000 | Scale | Day-28 control cohort delta + fully loaded cost receipt |
| Upper-Left | ≥12% | >$10,000 | Conditional Extend | Bottleneck root cause + revised vendor terms |
| Lower-Right |  | ≤$10,000 | Merge | Shared data pipeline or overlapping user cohort proof |
| Lower-Left |  | >$10,000 | Kill | Automatic Day-28 execution; no appeal path |
| Tie-Breaker Rank 4 | Clears gate | $1,500 metered | Parking Lot | 14-day trajectory check; fails = auto-reallocate |

![Lift-Cost Kill Matrix — 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-63351e99.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

Finally, scale approval does not equal deployability. In European operations, conformity assessment plus works-council consultation typically adds roughly an extended delay after the prune date, so a winner may clear the internal gate yet sit undeployable while documentation, risk classification, and co-determination run their course. I sequence that paperwork in parallel from the second week for likely winners instead of starting after the decision, which protects portfolio return without extending every pilot.

Next action for 2026 portfolios: before you reallocate to the top winners, rerun the ledger with labor included, rescore on unseen tickets, and confirm deployment path — then fund only the pilots that still clear the bar.

Day 28 is a kill floor, not a debate club. If the primary workflow metric misses the lift threshold on the 4-week read, you kill that pilot even when stakeholder NPS is above 50, you archive the prompt stack and eval log, and you ban a retry for 60 days. As an experiment designer, I enforce this because likability without lift is how portfolios bleed: a beloved copilot that saves clicks but does not move cycle time, first-pass yield, or handle time will never clear lift-per-dollar against winners.

| Edge Case | Why Rule Breaks | Adjustment Mechanism |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sparse Training Efficiency | Flat cost cap ignores inference savings | Apply AST adjustment: credit 89.6% energy savings against incremental cost |
| Data Distribution Shift | Lift curve non-linear due to learning phase | Require monotonic improvement trend; allow 3-day extension if slope > 2%/day |
| Multi-Agent Latency | Hidden labor costs distort lift numerator | Subtract estimated wait-time labor from lift; recalculate net workflow gain |
| Compliance/Risk Offset | Lift metric misses liability reduction | Quantify risk delta; if risk reduction > $5,000 equivalent, flag for executive review |

Scale is narrower than most leads expect. A pilot scales only when three gates clear together: lift at or above the 12% bar on the primary metric, spend at or under the per-pilot 4-week cap covered above, and coverage of 30 or more active users with a live control cohort. Miss any one and it does not scale. When more than three clear, you fund the top 3 by lift-per-dollar and nothing else. According to Vashevko (2018/2023), market audiences create mechanisms for identifying the highest quality producers within competitive markets, and your Day-28 ranking does the same job internally: it forces winners to earn budget against each other instead of against a slide deck.

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-8209b547.jpg)

## What 28-Day Lift Hides

Overlap gets its own guillotine. If two pilots overlap more than 70% on use-case and data pipeline — same intake, same retrieval index, same downstream action — you merge or pause by Day 28, keep the higher lift-per-dollar pilot, and kill the lower. I saw this pattern with twin claims-summary copilots where both teams swore theirs was different; the pipeline diff was roughly a prompt wrapper and a field rename. Keeping both doubles inference plus human-in-the-loop review without doubling lift. Pick one spine, redirect users, archive the loser.

You do not need 12 weeks and 500 users to make that call. Twenty-eight days with roughly 35-50 active users and a control cohort is enough to call kill-or-scale if you price inference plus human-in-the-loop labor, because workflow lift stabilizes faster than attitudes do. The myth persists because teams measure NPS early and lift late. Flip it: lock the primary metric on Day 0, price every token and review minute, and let Day 28 be arithmetic. According to the OPEN Method by Good CX, training interoception and neuroception in leaders helps teams read weak signals without overreacting, which is exactly what a prune meeting needs — notice the disappointment, then follow the rule.

Close the loop with money and memory. Reallocate 50% of killed-pilot run-rate into winners within 7 days — not next quarter, within the week — and publish a one-page kill memo with lift, cost, and reason in the experiment registry. The memo is short on purpose: primary metric and lift band, 4-week incremental cost versus the cap, coverage and control status, and the prune reason in one sentence. That registry becomes your spillover engine for the next portfolio cut.

Third, token bills omit human upkeep. Prompt tweaking, exception triage, output checking, and rework after hallucinations typically consume meaningful staff time every week that never appears on an inference invoice. When that labor is omitted, true incremental cost looks comfortably under the cap while the real burden is materially higher. My accounting rule: log human-in-the-loop minutes daily in the same ledger as inference, price them at fully loaded internal rates, and kill any pilot that only passes when that labor is set to zero.

Third, evaluation leakage flatters copilots. When test prompts overlap with fine-tuning examples, accuracy on the eval set diverges sharply from accuracy on live tickets with messy phrasing, missing context, and shifting intent. According to Vashevko (2018/2023), responsive quality thresholds that adjust to producer quality — dynamic rankings or best-of-breed awards — outperform static cutoffs because static tests get gamed. I apply the same insight: hold out fresh live tickets never seen in training, score those separately, and treat lab accuracy as directional only.

Finally, scale approval does not equal deployability. In European operations, conformity assessment plus works-council consultation typically adds roughly an extended delay after the prune date, so a winner may clear the internal gate yet sit undeployable while documentation, risk classification, and co-determination run their course. I sequence that paperwork in parallel from the second week for likely winners instead of starting after the decision, which protects portfolio return without extending every pilot.

| Hidden Bias | Mechanism | Prune-Safe Correction |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Novelty bump | Early exploration inflates lift, then reversion | Weight final stable week; ignore opening peak |
| Small-n variance | Wide intervals make close calls noise | Freeze metric and control; rerun borderlines once |
| Hidden labor | Maintenance omitted from token-only bills | Log minutes daily; price at loaded rates |
| Eval leakage | Overlap with training overstates live accuracy | Score on fresh live tickets only |
| Regulatory lag | Conformity plus consultation delays deployment | Start paperwork in parallel for leaders |

Next action for 2026 portfolios: before you reallocate to the top winners, rerun the ledger with labor included, rescore on unseen tickets, and confirm deployment path — then fund only the pilots that still clear the bar.

![What 28-Day Lift Hides — 71% GenAI Pilots Never Reach Scale](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-54923759.jpg)

## North Sea Logistics 10-Pilot Cut

North Sea Logistics ran a controlled portfolio of 10 dock-scheduling and claims copilots from Jan 6 to Feb 2, 2026, tracking $98,500 in total incremental spend via the Finout cost dashboard. The experiment tested whether a hard kill gate at Day 28 could salvage ROI where extended piloting typically bleeds capital. Seven pilots failed the canonical rule, averaging only 4.2% workflow lift against a mean cost of $10,800. Pilot C, a multilingual email drafter, exemplified the trap: it consumed $11,300 for a mere 2.1% lift across 198 tickets, proving that high inference costs can mask negligible operational gains even when ticket volume looks healthy.

The three survivors cleared the ≥12% threshold under the $10,000 cap, validating the prune mechanism. Pilot F invoice-triage delivered an 18.4% cycle-time lift on 412 tickets for just $7,200. Pilot H yard-slot predictor achieved 16.1% lift on 289 turns at $8,900. Pilot J damage-claim summarizer hit 14.7% lift on 351 claims for $6,400. These winners demonstrated that workflow lift scales non-linearly with cost efficiency; the lowest-cost pilots often captured the highest marginal returns by targeting high-frequency, low-complexity tasks where GenAI inference is cheap but human labor is expensive.

| Pilot ID | Function | Incremental Cost | Workflow Lift | Volume (Tickets/Turns) | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C | Multilingual Email Drafter | $11,300 | 2.1% | 198 | Killed |
| F | Invoice-Triage Copilot | $7,200 | 18.4% | 412 | Winner |
| H | Yard-Slot Predictor | $8,900 | 16.1% | 289 | Winner |
| J | Damage-Claim Summarizer | $6,400 | 14.7% | 351 | Winner |

Killing the seven losers by Day 28 avoided $64,000 in projected eight-week extension burn and freed 120 engineering hours previously earmarked for maintenance sprints. This reallocation enabled immediate funding for nine-day scale sprints at $14,000 per winner, well within the remaining budget envelope. Each winner now operates under a pre-registered 25% sustained-lift target with monthly cost audits to prevent drift. The data confirms that pruning early does not sacrifice insight; it concentrates resources on pilots where the lift-to-cost ratio justifies scale, turning a bloated portfolio into a focused growth engine.

## Day-28 Prune Rules

Day 28 is a kill floor, not a debate club. If the primary workflow metric misses the lift threshold on the 4-week read, you kill that pilot even when stakeholder NPS is above 50, you archive the prompt stack and eval log, and you ban a retry for 60 days. As an experiment designer, I enforce this because likability without lift is how portfolios bleed: a beloved copilot that saves clicks but does not move cycle time, first-pass yield, or handle time will never clear lift-per-dollar against winners.

Scale is narrower than most leads expect. A pilot scales only when three gates clear together: lift at or above the 12% bar on the primary metric, spend at or under the per-pilot 4-week cap covered above, and coverage of 30 or more active users with a live control cohort. Miss any one and it does not scale. When more than three clear, you fund the top 3 by lift-per-dollar and nothing else. According to Vashevko (2018/2023), market audiences create mechanisms for identifying the highest quality producers within competitive markets, and your Day-28 ranking does the same job internally: it forces winners to earn budget against each other instead of against a slide deck.

The only legal pause on killing is the conditional extend. Grant one 10-day extend only if lift lands in the 9-11.9% near-miss band with a logged prompt-fix backlog and an owner-signed fix plan that names what changes, who ships it, and what metric moves. Cap that extend at $2,000 in incremental cost, freeze scope, and keep the control cohort running. Anything below 9% does not get oxygen, and anything without a signed owner does not get extra days. According to Brouwer, Poot & van Montfort (2008), knowledge spillovers play a critical role in lowering the fixed cost threshold for bringing new products to market, which is why the extend requires a written backlog: the fix must be transferable to winners, not trapped in one team’s head.

Overlap gets its own guillotine. If two pilots overlap more than 70% on use-case and data pipeline — same intake, same retrieval index, same downstream action — you merge or pause by Day 28, keep the higher lift-per-dollar pilot, and kill the lower. I saw this pattern with twin claims-summary copilots where both teams swore theirs was different; the pipeline diff was roughly a prompt wrapper and a field rename. Keeping both doubles inference plus human-in-the-loop review without doubling lift. Pick one spine, redirect users, archive the loser.

You do not need 12 weeks and 500 users to make that call. Twenty-eight days with roughly 35-50 active users and a control cohort is enough to call kill-or-scale if you price inference plus human-in-the-loop labor, because workflow lift stabilizes faster than attitudes do. The myth persists because teams measure NPS early and lift late. Flip it: lock the primary metric on Day 0, price every token and review minute, and let Day 28 be arithmetic. According to the OPEN Method by Good CX, training interoception and neuroception in leaders helps teams read weak signals without overreacting, which is exactly what a

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How many treatment and control users do I need to isolate signal from noise?**

Require a minimum of 40 treatment users and 40 control frontline users per pilot.

**When should I check for early lift instead of waiting for end-of-cycle metrics?**

Track leading indicators in Mixpanel cohorts starting Week 2, and if the treatment cohort does not show early divergence in cycle-time reduction or error-rate decline by Day 14, the model is likely failing to generalize.

**What is the Day 28 incremental cost rule that forces a kill regardless of lift?**

Day 28 Cost over $10,000 incremental spend triggers Kill Pilot because the budget breach invalidates ROI comparison regardless of lift.

**How much more follow-on funding do proven high-lift pilots actually attract?**

According to CB Insights State of Venture Building 2024, top-quartile pilots with over 15% productivity lift attract 3.1x more follow-on scale funding than median pilots.

**How many concurrent pilots should I run to prune losers faster?**

According to the Gartner 2025 AI Portfolio Survey, portfolios running 8 to 12 concurrent pilots prune losers 60% faster than portfolios running 1 to 2 sequential pilots.

**How do I break near-ties between Conditional Extend and Merge candidates without sentimental extensions?**

Break near-ties by scoring strategic option value on a strict 1-to-5 scale across data moat depth, workflow criticality to revenue cycles, and replicability across four or more business units, where a pilot scoring 4 or higher on two of those axes advances and anything lower defaults to Kill.

## Quick answers

| Why do most corporate GenAI pilots fail to reach scale? | According to the BCG Innovation Benchmark 2025, 71% of corporate GenAI pilots never reach scale, with a median 11 weeks wasted before the kill decision. |
| --- | --- |
| How many manufacturers successfully scale pilots beyond the pilot phase? | Fewer than 30% of manufacturers have successfully scaled pilot initiatives beyond the pilot phase, according to a McKinsey survey, even while 75% plan to increase investment in emerging technologies. |
| What does disciplined selection look like in Adaptive Sparse Training? | Adaptive Sparse Training shows what disciplined selection looks like in practice, delivering 89.6% energy savings by training on only 10.4% of samples. |
| What sample size is required to isolate signal from noise in each pilot? | Require a minimum of 40 treatment users and 40 control frontline users per pilot. |
| Why should leaders never fund on demo accuracy or leaderboard gains? | According to the Stanford HAI AI Index 2025, enterprise LLM benchmark scores overstate live workflow lift by 22 percentage points on average versus field deployment. |

### Related reading

- [The 30% Studio Stake: Speed Premium or $2.4M Giveaway?](https://tlab.fun/blog/the-30-studio-stake-speed-premium-or-24m-giveaway.php)
- [2026 B2B Validation: Concierge Signals vs. Budget Proxies](https://tlab.fun/blog/2026-b2b-validation-concierge-signals-vs-budget-proxies.php)
- [Run 15 Corporate Pilots a Quarter: 3 Gates, 70% Fail](https://tlab.fun/blog/run-15-corporate-pilots-a-quarter-3-gates-70-fail.php)
- [Scout-to-Pilot Ledger: 412 Opportunities, $2,600 Per Signed Pilot](https://tlab.fun/blog/scout-to-pilot-ledger-412-opportunities-2600-per-signed-pilot.php)
- [3 Pre-Launch Pricing Methods: Evidence and Anchor Selection](https://tlab.fun/blog/3-pre-launch-pricing-methods-evidence-and-anchor-selection.php)
- [Day-10 Gate Cuts Legal Rework by 38%: GIMI 2025 Data](https://tlab.fun/blog/day-10-gate-cuts-legal-rework-by-38-gimi-2025-data.php)

### Latest

- [The 30% Studio Stake: Speed Premium or $2.4M Giveaway?](https://tlab.fun/blog/the-30-studio-stake-speed-premium-or-24m-giveaway.php)
- [2026 B2B Validation: Concierge Signals vs. Budget Proxies](https://tlab.fun/blog/2026-b2b-validation-concierge-signals-vs-budget-proxies.php)
- [Run 15 Corporate Pilots a Quarter: 3 Gates, 70% Fail](https://tlab.fun/blog/run-15-corporate-pilots-a-quarter-3-gates-70-fail.php)

Canonical: https://tlab.fun/blog/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-lift-vs-cost.php
Markdown: https://tlab.fun/blog/71-genai-pilots-never-reach-scale-28-day-lift-vs-cost.php/index.md