Quality and distribution debates assume the layer gets paid. My map says it doesn't — yet. As of mid-2026, no public company clears 10% verified revenue from AI-implementation work. The six-link chain is forming and conviction shows in acquisitions, but dollars sit in bookings and management constructs. Closest line: one consultancy's ~$1.1B/qtr 'Advanced AI' (~6%, management-labeled, not audited). Knowing where the money isn't remains half the map.

Quality may create the category, but the auditor watches the migration. As of mid-2026, zero of 14 public companies verifiably earn >10% revenue from AI-implementation work. The six-link chain — protocols through verticals — shows conviction in acquisitions and open standards, but dollars sit in bookings and management metrics, not recognized revenue. Closest disclosed line: one consultancy's ~$1.1B/qtr "Advanced AI" (~6% of revenue, management-labeled, not an audited segment). Knowing where the money isn't remains half the map.

Quality pulls users, but the bottleneck I audit is agent identity — Palo Alto's $25B CyberArk bet explicitly frames 'human, machine, and agentic' identity as the control layer. Zero companies disclose agent-identity revenue. Okta's CEO calls current spend 'plumbing, not billions of token spend' for 5-10 years. The integration layer already commoditized to open source. A pre-revenue bottleneck backed by record M&A is either early or wrong; first disclosed revenue line is my upgrade trigger.

Quality may pull users in, but the auditor watches conversion. IBM's generative-AI 'book of business' grew from $5B to $12.5B across 2025 — inception-to-date signings, mostly consulting — while Consulting revenue grew 0.4%. Accenture booked $5.9B in fiscal 2025 guiding 2-5% growth amid an $865M restructuring. Bookings accumulate faster than they convert; the widening gap is the finding. The income statement is the only scoreboard that can't be re-labeled.