Enterprise AI · April 2026

5 Production Truths Enterprise AI Leaders Learned the Hard Way

What 200+ enterprise leaders managing live AI deployments discovered about cost, control, and governance — the things no vendor slides told them.
Sign in to Read the Full Gen AI Survey Report
The 5 findings that will change how you think about AI infrastructure
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
200+
Enterprise respondents
18+
Industries represented
95%
Running agents in production
81%
AI spend growing this year
04
05
Truths
01
03
05
01
Truth
Your inference bill is the smallest part of the problem
03
Truth
The tool surface exploded before anyone was ready.
05
Truth
Tool expansion = investment & risk
02
Truth
95% run agents. Half can't trace where they go.
04
Truth
What you can't see, you can't govern.
200+ organizations · All with AI in production

Contributing thought leaders

Garrett Mallory
Sr. Manager ML
Roadie
I was at a conference three weeks ago and a presenter from Google ended her talk with something that's really stuck with me — 'This is the worst the models will ever be.' And that says a lot because of the degree of change. Even if we stopped here, that's already been disruptive. I tend to be one of the most skeptical machine learning professionals that I know — I try to apply machine learning to as few problems as possible, counterintuitively. I've had a series of those moments more frequently with this technology than with other technologies."
Daniel Shir
VP Engineering
Via Transportation
I think everyone that has ever used AI models has run into the issue of cost at one point or another. I've heard lots of stories about cost spiking, or about a chain of micro-services in a specific back-end where all of a sudden one change in one part led to a large amount of data running through the system and all of a sudden AI costs have gone through the roof.
Meenal Iyer
SVP Data
SurveyMonkey
When the cloud came in the first time, everyone was hit with the same thing — we're not going to have CapEx, there's no more on-prem, everything is going to move up to the cloud. And then they started looking at the cloud costs and the OpEx just increased like crazy. It's going to be quite a learning curve and it's going to be painful, especially in terms of cost — because people think AI coming in is going to reduce costs. No. There are costs to running AI itself which people haven't accounted for.
Featured Voices

Voices from the Field

Practitioners who are leading the charge of GenAI across the ecosystem
The biggest friction is inconsistency: different teams running different models with no shared evaluation standards, which means outputs that can't be compared and integrations that keep breaking on updates. We've had to retroactively build governance around 10+ models instead of designing for it upfront, and that debt shows up as latency in every delivery cycle.
Dmytro Zhorov
VP Technology Lead
EPAM Systems
The biggest friction from model sprawl is the loss of standardization. When multiple teams manage models independently, governance becomes fragmented, observability is inconsistent, and production reliability suffers. This creates hidden costs in the form of duplicated infrastructure, delayed incident resolution, and slower time-to-value for new AI initiatives. It also increases business risk.
Deepak MK
VP Data Science
Examroom AI
On what’s going to be different in 2026 - Agentic workflows and agentic solutions to problems like model sprawl and code reviews on generated code. And on biggest security risk in 2026 - Usage level statistics and eval sets.
Holt Calder
Director Data Analytics
Greenhouse Software
There are two major issues that we face because of the larger number of models. First, for our own internal models, we face issues in maintaining versions and governance because there are large amounts of training data, parameter information and other artifacts that are associated with a model, and we usually store them manually on s3. The other issues is making sure that the external models that we use through APIs do not expire. This becomes a problem because many teams use external models for their own tasks, and hence, it is difficult to find a coordinated way to upgrade them when a new version is released and the previous version is deprecated. The vendors mail us, and then, we pass on the information through meetings to update and test the new versions.
Apurva Bhargava
ML/AI Engineer
Informed
Respondent Disclosure & Privacy Notice
The individuals and organizations featured in this report participated voluntarily as independent thought leaders and practitioners of enterprise GenAI. All responses were collected through a structured research survey designed specifically to capture practitioner experiences and perspectives — no proprietary, confidential, or commercially sensitive company information was solicited or included. Company logos and affiliations are displayed solely to indicate the respondent's professional context at the time of the survey and do not imply organizational endorsement of any findings, products, or services referenced herein. Respondents who did not provide explicit consent to be identified have been anonymized. Any resemblance of anonymized profiles to specific individuals is coincidental.

Executive Summary

Enterprise AI has crossed the production threshold. Budgets are growing across the board, and model access has never been easier. But beneath the momentum, a more complicated picture is forming.

The tools enterprises chose for speed are now their largest sources of cost opacity, security exposure, and governance debt. These five truths — drawn from 200+ real production deployments — describe what that looks like in practice.
95%
Running AI agents in production — not pilots, not experiments but live.
41%
See inference costs only post-usage — no real-time visibility
76%
Lack fully unified logging across all models and agents
51%
Cannot confirm all tool endpoints are authenticated and secure
The 5 Production Truths
Truth 01
Your inference bill is the smallest part
Truth 02
95% run agents. Half can't Fully trace them.
Truth 03
The tool surface exploded
Truth 04
What you can't see, you can't govern
Truth 05
The 2026 Paradox: Investment vs Risk prioritization
Headline Stat
41%
see costs post-usage
83%
see token amplification
78%
have 6+ tool endpoints
56%
have no full control layer
#1
Tool expansion = investment & risk
What it Means
Hidden costs — orchestration, tool calls, retries — compound invisibly
Agentic loops multiply costs and risk in ways point monitoring misses
MCP/tool proliferation outpaced security and access control frameworks
Fragmented logging creates compliance gaps even in regulated industries
Organizations are accelerating into their own exposure with full knowledge
Who Responded

200+ Enterprise AI Leaders,
‍All with Agents Running in Production

Every respondent confirmed live AI agent deployments. No POC-only teams. No aspirational respondents. These are the people managing real production risk, right now.
Industry Distribution
Industry Distribution
34%
Financial Services
22%
Healthcare & Life Sciences
12%
Retail & Consumer
11%
Manufacturing & Industrial
10%
Other
11%
Job Function Distribution
VP/SVP/EVP of Engineering or AI
38%
Director / Sr. Director of AI
29%
CTO / CIO / CDO / CAIO
18%
Head of AI / ML Platform
15%
Company Revenue Distribution
$1B+ (Large Enterprise)
44%
$250M – $1B (Mid-Market)
31%
$50M – $250M (Growth)
18%
Under $50M (Scale-up)
7%
Named Contributors
Every featured quote is attributed to a real person, verified title, and company. No anonymous surveys dressed up as research.
Production-Only Respondents
All participants confirmed active AI agent deployments. Not planning, not piloting — live in production with real cost and risk exposure.
Stats Derived from Raw Data
Every percentage is calculated directly from survey responses. Nothing extrapolated, inferred, or rounded to make a better headline.
No Vendor Bias
Respondents were not customers. Questions were written to surface problems, not validate solutions. Negative findings were not softened.
Production Truth #01

Your inference bill is the smallest part  of the problem

Inference cost is a minority share
The inference bill, despite being the most visible metric, accounts for only 15–20% of total AI production cost.
Majority of costs are hidden in system complexity
The remaining ~80% of costs arise from less visible layers such as orchestration overhead, tool call chains, embedding generation, retry loops, and engineering effort for debugging non-deterministic behavior.
Cost visibility is delayed and reactive
A significant 41% of organizations lack real-time cost monitoring, becoming aware of expenses only after usage has already occurred, without proactive alerts or budget controls.
Misconfigurations amplify unseen costs dramatically
Errors like an agent executing a 400-call chain instead of 4 can go unnoticed until billing cycles, leading to unexpected and substantial cost overruns.
Advanced visibility practices define cost control maturity
Enterprises with better cost management have transitioned from post-hoc billing analysis to token-level tracing across the entire AI stack, enabling granular and proactive oversight.
Spend Trajectory in 2026
Growing aggressively (>30%)
42%
Growing moderately (10–30%)
39%
Stable or consolidating
19%
AI Cost Visibility
After usage (post-hoc billing)
41%
Partial real-time visibility
35%
Full real-time token-level tracking
24%
80%
Hidden Costs
The remaining 80% hides in orchestration overhead, tool call chains, embedding generation, retries, and debugging non-deterministic behavior.
Organizations report budget increases in 2026
81%
AI Spend Growing
61%
Spend Controls in Place
No spend caps or rate limits of any kind across AI deployments
Inference Bill
Misleads
01
Truth
Misconfiguration Risks
41%
Lack Real-Time
Visibility
Of organizations only see AI costs after usage, with no real-time alerts or budget controls in place.
FROM THE FIELD
What surprised us most about GenAI costs in production: inference can explode 10x beyond training costs, and context bloat multiplies rapidly — spiking latency in the process. Model sprawl has created significant orchestration overhead — coordinating multiple models drives up compute costs and error rates, while unmanaged sprawl introduces friction in data flow that compounds over time.
Bijit Ghosh
Engineering
Wells Fargo
In pilots, cost looks linear and predictable—API usage, a few engineers, modest infrastructure. In production, cost becomes non‑linear and systemic. Inference spend grows faster than expected as usage scales, but that’s only part of it. The bigger surprise is how much cost sits around the model: orchestration, monitoring, security controls, compliance reviews, integration with legacy systems, and ongoing human oversight.
Mukta Maheshwari
AVP Engineering
State Street
Production Truth #02

95% Run Agents. Half Can't Fully Trace  Where They Go.

Agentic AI is now the default
Agentic AI has moved from a concept to a default pattern: almost every enterprise in this survey runs autonomous agents in production that coordinate tasks, call tools, and make decisions without human confirmation at each step.
Agentic workflows create long call chains
When an agent runs, it doesn’t make one model call; it creates a chain of actions — prompt, tool call, retrieval, re‑prompt, decision — and each link can amplify token usage and cost.
Lack of real‑time chain inspection
Most organizations cannot inspect this chain in real time. Only about half have the tracing infrastructure to see agent decisions step‑by‑step as they happen.
Adoption driven by real productivity gains
The adoption curve has been steep and is mostly fueled by genuine productivity gains, not just experimentation.
Not just a cost issue, also compliance
This lack of visibility is not just a cost problem; for regulated industries, it becomes a compliance and auditability problem with serious consequences.
95%
Agents in
Production
Confirmed running AI agents in live production environments
83%
Token Amplification in Agentic Workflows
Observe significant token amplification, agent chains consuming 3–15×expected tokens
AI Cost Visibility
Full step-by-step agent tracing
46%
Partial tracing (output-level only)
49%
No structured tracing in place
5%
83%
 See Token
Amplification
83% of respondents observe token amplification, where a task that should cost ~1,000 tokens ends up consuming 8,000, 15,000, or more through the chain.
An agent doesn't make one model call; it creates a chain of actions- prompt, tool call, retrieval, re prompt, decision amplifying token usage and cost.
Agents Create Long Call Chains
61%
No Spend Caps
61% report no spend caps on agentic workflows, meaning a runaway agent loop has no automated stop condition.
No Real-Time
Chain Inspection
02
Truth
Agentic AI Is
Now the Default
Compliance & Audit Risk
This lack of visibility is not just a cost problem; for regulated industries, it's a compliance and auditability problem with serious consequences.
FROM THE FIELD
Early model sprawl created duplication and limited observability. We mitigated this by building a centralized LLM library to abstract provider access and standardize telemetry. While this significantly improved governance and cost control, it introduced some friction in terms of slower experimentation and dependency on the platform team for new model integrations.
Karan Kakwani
Machine Learning Engineering
Apollo.io
The real  shock was that inference costs are only about 15–20% of total spend; the other 80% is hiding in data pipelines, evaluation loops, drift remediation, and integration work that no pilot ever surfaces. We essentially funded a visible line item and inherited four invisible ones.
Dmytro Zhorov
VP Technology Lead
EPAM Systems
As we move from single-turn interactions to multi-step autonomous pipelines, the blast radius of a bad decision grows fast. We don't yet have the equivalent of a circuit breaker — something that catches when an agent is about to do something it shouldn't, mid-flight. Traditional security tooling wasn't built for this and we're somewhat improvising.
Anonymous
ML Engineering
Daugherty Enterprises
Production Truth #03

The tool surface exploded before ‍anyone was ready

Tool surface exploded first
The Model Context Protocol and tool‑calling APIs gave AI agents full reach into databases, APIs, internal services, and external systems, but they did not ship with any governance framework for when every team starts wiring their own endpoints.
Explosion of active tool endpoints
78% of enterprises now have six or more tool endpoints in active use, turning each endpoint into an independent attack surface, billing surface, and data access path.
Endpoints as independent attack/billing surfaces
These tool endpoints are not just “neat integrations”; when called by an agent they can access customer data, trigger downstream processes, or incur third‑party API costs, and this multiplies across dozens of teams, hundreds of agents, and thousands of daily calls.
Big gap in tool inventory vs. security review
There is a significant, largely unmeasured gap between a company’s actual tool inventory and the security review of that inventory.
MCP governance gap
The MCP governance gap means the tooling for agent‑to‑system connections scaled far faster than the organizational capacity to review, approve, and audit them.
78%
Active Tool Endpoints per Organizations
Have 6 or more active tool/MCP endpoints across AI systems
51%
Authentication Confidence across tool Endpoints
Cannot confirm all tool endpoints are properly authenticated
Active Tool Endpoints per Organizations
6–15 endpoints
44%
16+ endpoints
34%
2–5 endpoints
22%
78%
6+ Endpoints
78% of enterprises now have six or more tool endpoints in active use, each acting as an independent attack surface, billing surface, and data access path.
There is a significant, largely unmeasured gap between a company's tool inventory and its security review of
that inventory.
Gap:
Inventory vs.
Security Review
51%
Unconfirmed
51% cannot confirm all tool endpoints are properly authenticated and access-controlled; for the other 49%, "confirmed" often means "we think so," not "verified systematically."
03
Truth
Endpoints as
Attack & Billing
Surfaces
MCP
Governance Gap
The MCP governance gap means the tooling for agent-to-system connections scaled far faster than the organization's ability to review, approve, and audit them.
FROM THE FIELD
There are quite a few operational frictions caused by model sprawl in the organization — different models and tools producing different or even contradictory results, regulatory and compliance risks, production issues when moving from a prototype to a mass production model, as well as an efficiency hit.
Anonymous
Principal Engineer
Intel
It also complicated cost management and observability. API usage and GPU workloads grew in parallel, and without unified tracking, it became harder to attribute spend or measure ROI at a use case level. On the governance side, varying licensing terms and data handling policies across models required additional review cycles.
Omkar Basarikatti
ML Engineering
Acceldata
Production Truth #04

What you can't see,  you can't govern

76% lack unified logging
76% of organizations do not have fully unified logging across all their AI models and agent workflows. Different models log to different systems, agent decisions are not correlated with inference logs, and there is no single view of what the full AI stack did on a given day — a nightmare for CISOs and compliance officers behind the shiny demos.
No single view of the AI stack
Because logs are siloed, the full chain of AI behavior (from prompt to agent decision to model call) cannot be reconstructed in one place, making incident investigation, cost attribution, and compliance reporting extremely fragile.
No universal enforcement points
Without that central layer, there is no single place to enforce prompting policies, apply content filters universally, route traffic between models by cost or capability, or systematically record decisions for audit. Every model is accessed directly, often with the same API key and minimal logging.
Direct model access is a risk
Direct, unmediated access to models means policies are implemented ad hoc, security boundaries are inconsistent, and the same vulnerable pattern repeats across teams and tools.
Audits already flagging this as a finding
Several enterprise leaders in this survey said compliance audits are already surfacing the lack of unified AI logging and control as a material finding, forcing attention and resource allocation.
76%
Lack fully unified logging across all AI models and workflows
56%
Have no centralized control layer for AI access and policy enforcement
Logging Coverage Breakdown
Fully unified (all models + agents)
24%
Partial (some models logged)
61%
Minimal or no structured logging
15%
Top Governance Concerns Cited
Data leakage / PII exposure in prompts
1st
Lack of audit trail for model decisions
2nd
No policy enforcement between users & models
3rd
76%
Lack Unified
Logging
76% of organizations do not have fully unified logging across AI models and agent workflows, so each system logs separately and behavior cannot be reconstructed as a whole.
Without unified logs, there is no single view of what the full AI stack did on a given day, making incident analysis & compliance reporting highly fragile.
No Single View
of the AI Stack
56%
Lack Central
Control Layer
56% of enterprises have no centralized control layer between users or agents and the models they call, so there is no common policy enforcement point.
No Universal
Enforcement
Points
04
Truth
Direct Model
Access Is Risky
Compliance
Consequences
In regulated industries like finance, healthcare, and insurance, this gap has direct compliance consequences and weakens the foundation beneath shiny AI demos.
FROM THE FIELD
Model sprawl increases evaluation complexity, since performance comparisons across providers and model versions are not standardized. Governance and access control reviews take longer as the surface area expands.
Ameer Azam
Data Scientist
Pixis.ai
Model sprawl  triggers "FinOps" and security chaos, making it nearly impossible to track per-feature ROI or enforce consistent safety guardrails across the organization.
Lucas Hendrich
CTO
Forte  Group
Managing so many models has made things more complicated day-to-day. It’s harder to keep track of updates, make sure everything works together, and stay consistent across teams. It definitely slows things down and adds extra work.
Velia Carboni
EVP and CDTO
VF Corporation
Production Truth #05

The 2026 Paradox: ‍‍
Expanding Into the Gap

Tool ecosystem expansion as top priority
Tool‑ecosystem expansion — adding more MCP servers, connecting more internal systems to AI agents, and wiring more enterprise APIs — is the #1 investment priority, cited by 27% of respondents.
Competitive pressure to expand
Organizations that connect more tools, automate more workflows, and give agents more reach will create compounding advantages over those that wait, driven by strong competitive pressure.
Every new tool is a governance backlog item
Every new tool connection is also a new entry into the governance backlog — a new endpoint that must be authenticated, logged, audited, and secured. That backlog is already behind.
Building tool surface first creates structural liability
They are putting a centralized AI gateway in place — a layer that sees all model calls, enforces all policies, and logs all decisions — and then expanding the tool surface on top of it, not the reverse.
Liability grows with each integration
This liability becomes harder to remediate with every new integration, as the surface grows larger and more fragmented.
27%
#1 INVESTMENT PRIORITY IN 2026
Tool Ecosystem Expansion
More MCP servers. More internal APIs connected to agents. More tool endpoints giving AI greater reach across enterprise systems. This is where the budget is going.
31%
#1 RISK FACTOR IN 2026
Tool Surface Security
Uncontrolled tool proliferation, unauthenticated endpoints, and no central enforcement layer. The very thing enterprises are investing in is also what keeps their CISOs up at night.
2026's
Defining Paradox
The same capability enterprises plan to invest in most aggressively is also their single largest stated risk, defining the 2026 AI landscape.
They put a centralized AI gateway in place, a layer that sees all model calls, enforces all policies, and logs all decisions, then expand the tool surface on top of it.
Building Control Layer First
Winning
Enterprises Act
Differently
Enterprises that navigate this paradox successfully build control infrastructure before they expand, not after.
Liability Grows
with Each
Integration
05
Truth
Tool Ecosystem
Expansion Priority
Governance
Pressure Arrives
Too Late
By the time external governance pressure arrives, the tool surface is too large and fragmented to be addressed quickly or coherently.
FROM THE FIELD
Doing differently? Implementing unified GenAI governance with real-time cost tracking, policy-based access controls, and centralized observability across models and tools.
Kumar Gautam
Principal Architect
Pure Storage
We are establishing shared infrastructure, governance frameworks, and clear decision-making around model usage, access control, and cost accountability. We are also prioritizing repeatable accelerators instead of one-off solutions, so every successful implementation becomes a reusable template for faster scale across the organization.
Deepak MK
VP Data Science
Examroom AI
2026 Investment Priorities

What Enterprise Leaders Are Doing About It

Despite the challenges, the data shows clear momentum around specific investments
Here's where enterprise AI budget is flowing in 2026
27%
Tool ecosystem expansion
25%
More Agents
14%
Centralized Control Layer
12%
More Models
10%
Security Enforcement
10%
Cost Visibility
ADDITIONAL VOICES
We've moved from evaluating models to evaluating the infrastructure around models. The model is almost a commodity — what differentiates production at scale is routing, logging, cost control, and the ability to swap without rewriting your applications.
Daniel Shir
VP Engineering
Via Transportation
We run a hybrid model stack — some proprietary, some open source, some fine-tuned. The only way to manage that sanely is with a unified gateway layer. Without it you'd need a different integration, a different logging approach, a different cost model for each. It doesn't scale.
Lucas Hendrich
CTO
Forte Group
Featured Voices

The Leaders Who Shaped This Report

Some practitioners whose depth of insight drove the five production truths — from global banks
navigating compliance to AI-native startups building governance from scratch.
Alan Chan
Vice President
IT
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Architectural complexity  
It’s not simply requests × price. The costs skyrocket because of longer-than-expected prompts context stuffing, tool traces, multi-step agent loops, retries and fallbacks.
Priority
Tool Expansion
Linda Hermer
CEO
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Regulatory non-compliance
Compared to gen AI, it's been challenging (to say the least) to manage security with agentic AI systems. One problem is over-permissioned agents, which are often granted excessive access to internal databases, SaaS applications, and APIs.
Priority
Tool Expansion
Satish Tatini
Vice President
VF Corporation
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Architectural complexity
We’ve realized that user inputs can easily carry malicious or sensitive content (like prompt injection or data exfiltration attempts), and the model doesn’t inherently know what’s safe or not. That makes it a weak point, especially when the model is connected internally.
Priority
More Models
Balaji
CTO
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Security exposure
Cost, security and training are among the key aspects where we have seen friction due to increased model sprawl.
Priority
More Agents
Kumar Gautam
Kumar Gautam
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Cost unpredictability
GenAI risk in 2026 could be lack of unified visibility and control across model, tool, and workflow layers — leading to inconsistent policy enforcement and audit gaps.
Priority
Centralized Control Layer
Daniel Shir
Daniel Shir
Biggest AI Risk in 2026?
Security exposure
We needed to create testing infrastructure to make sure that model changes and drifts ultimately result in a relatively deterministic result.
Priority
More Agents
Sign in to Read the Full Gen AI Survey Report
The 5 findings that will change how you think about AI infrastructure
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
200+ organizations · All with AI in production

The Full Community Behind This Research

Omkar Basarikatti
ML Engineer
Balaji
Chief Technology Officer
Daniel Shir
VP Engineering
Holt Calder
Director Analytics
Lucas Hendrich
Chief Technology officer
Srinivas Bangalore
SVP AI
Anonymous
Principal Engineer
Bijit Ghosh
 Engineering
Mukta Maheshwari
Software Engineer AVP
Karan Kakwani
ML Engineer
Kumar Gautam
Principal Architect
Dmytro Zhorov
VP technology
Satish Tatini
VP Data and Digital
Ameer Azam
Data Scientist
Jelena Aleksic
Head of Data Science
Alan Chan
Vice President IT
Amit Agarwal
VP AI & Data
Velia Carboni
EVP and CDTO
Respondent Cohort
200+ respondents from various  industries lead AI initiatives
Automotive
Healthcare
Insurance
Logistics
Media & Publishing
+ more

The Layer That Makes the Rest of This Tractable

Across all five production truths, a single structural pattern separates enterprises managing these challenges from those accumulating them. A centralized AI gateway — one layer that sits between your teams, your agents, and every model and tool endpoint — makes cost attribution possible, makes governance enforceable, makes security auditable, and makes the paradox of expanding into risk something you can actually navigate. Without it, every new model you add and every new tool you connect makes the overall system harder to manage. With it, the opposite is true.
This is what TrueFoundry's AI Gateway is built for — not as an abstraction layer, but as the operational control plane that enterprise AI at scale actually requires.
200+
Enterprise leaders who shared their production experience for this research
18+
Industries represented, from financial services to healthcare to technology
5
Production truths — patterns consistent enough across the dataset to call universal
Research Methodology

About This Research

200+
Total responses received. Analysis for this report is based on  verified responses from confirmed enterprise production deployments.
32
Survey dimensions covering model access, agentic workflows, cost visibility, tool endpoints, security posture, governance, and 2026 priorities.
Mar–Apr 2026
Field period. All respondents are enterprise practitioners (VP level and above, or senior individual contributors with direct production responsibility) at organizations with active AI deployments.
Respondent Disclosure & Privacy Notice
The individuals and organizations featured in this report participated voluntarily as independent thought leaders and practitioners of enterprise GenAI. All responses were collected through a structured research survey designed specifically to capture practitioner experiences and perspectives — no proprietary, confidential, or commercially sensitive company information was solicited or included. Company logos and affiliations are displayed solely to indicate the respondent's professional context at the time of the survey and do not imply organizational endorsement of any findings, products, or services referenced herein. Respondents who did not provide explicit consent to be identified have been anonymized. Any resemblance of anonymized profiles to specific individuals is coincidental.