How could O.C. Tanner 
impact your business?

Dev note: blue tags cite a real, currently-published source (O.C. Tanner's own ROI methodology, Gallup Q12 Meta-Analysis 11th ed., O.C. Tanner Institute budget research) and drive the scenario toggle above. Gray tags are internal, unvalidated placeholder assumptions (baseline absenteeism cost) — replace with our own validated benchmarks before shipping. The retention component no longer uses a flat "31% turnover reduction" figure — that number came from a secondary aggregator site and couldn't be re-verified against an O.C. Tanner page, so it's been replaced with a reduction rate derived from O.C. Tanner's directly-verified "+2 years average tenure" stat, applied against the user's own turnover rate (see calc() below for the tenure → turnover-rate math). Productivity is now based on total payroll rather than a 3x-revenue proxy, so it no longer dominates the total the way it did in the first draft. Investment is now $250/employee/year (O.C. Tanner Institute recommended budget, range $200–$350) instead of an unsourced 0.5%-of-comp guess borrowed from a competitor. The scenario toggle scales only the cited effect-size percentages (25% / 50% / 100% of the full study result). "Full research value" still stacks two separate studies' full effect sizes into one number and will look large — treat it as a sales-conversation ceiling, not the default published number, until legal/product signs off. Even "Conservative" now runs somewhat higher than Awardco's published 8.67x example; that's expected since our investment denominator ($250/employee, backed by our own Institute research) is smaller than Awardco's assumed spend — if we want the headline multiple to visually track closer to competitors, the easiest lever is lowering the scenario percentages (e.g. 10% / 25% / 50% instead of 25% / 50% / 100%).