The tell
Read enough data-vendor pages and a pattern emerges. The ones with good coverage tell you the number. The ones without reach for an adjective: comprehensive, extensive, nationwide, industry-leading.
None of those can be checked, which is precisely why they are there.
The substitution is almost always deliberate. A vendor who has 6 states out of 50 and says "multi-state coverage" has not lied. They have chosen a phrase that will be read as more than it says — and they know how it will be read, because that is why they chose it.
What a coverage statement needs
Four things, and they are cheap to provide if the answer is honest:
1. A count. How many rows, records, filings, counties. 2. A denominator. Out of how many possible. "3,221 counties" means something. "Thousands of counties" does not. 3. A date. Data is perishable. A count without an as-of date is a claim about an unspecified past. 4. The distribution. An aggregate hides concentration. "6,912 filings across six states" is technically true and slightly misleading when two of those states are 91% of the total — which is why we publish the per-state split.
Our own numbers, as of 21 September 2026
| Dataset | Coverage | |---|---| | County displacement scores | 3,221 counties · 52 state codes | | WARN filings | 6,912 filings · 6 states only · 2004–2026 | | Death-care projections | 50,304 rows · 3,144 counties · 2025–2040 | | EWA legislation | 171 bills · 39 states |
The WARN row is the one worth dwelling on, because it is the least flattering. Six states. If your question is about Texas, this dataset cannot help you, and we would rather you learn that here than after a purchase.
Why publishing the weak number is the commercially correct choice
Not out of virtue. Because of what the alternative costs.
A customer who buys on an adjective and discovers the gap themselves does not quietly adjust their expectations. They conclude that everything else you said is also inflated — and they are being rational, because you gave them evidence that your published claims are chosen for effect.
The gap was going to be discovered either way. The only variable is whether it is discovered as disclosure or as a surprise, and those produce very different second conversations.
What to ask any vendor
- What is the denominator, and what is excluded? - What is the as-of date, and how often does it update? - How is it distributed — which slice is most of the volume? - Where does each record come from, at the row level? - What changed the last time the methodology changed, and are figures comparable across it?
A vendor who can answer those quickly has thought about them. A vendor who reaches for an adjective has also thought about them, and made a different choice about what to tell you.