So: 1/ lack of thinking in transcripts is not a decisive metric for determining if any thinking was done, but 2/ the reply does not address the qualitative aspects that Stella’s team observed and provided data for from what amounted to a bad qualitative experience with serious financial implications.
It’s a sidestep for explaining away the research, but does not address the underlying issue: has quality been degrading (selectively, intentionally or otherwise)?
It’s a sidestep for explaining away the research, but does not address the underlying issue: has quality been degrading (selectively, intentionally or otherwise)?