# Deloitte · Hindsight | Envisioning

Source: https://www.envisioning.com/hindsight/deloitte

---

---

1.  [Hindsight](/hindsight)
2.  ›Deloitte

---

# Deloitte

Every publication series from Deloitte in Hindsight, and how its predictions turned out.

---
[Publishers](/hindsight)[Forecast vs actual](/hindsight/forecasts)[Side by side](/hindsight/comparisons)
---

[Tech Trends](/hindsight/deloitte/tech-trends)Trend lists

Validated: trend persistence from two blind rename checkers, an adjudicator and an agent audit ([D33](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d33-trend-claims-persistence-across-the-publishers-own-editions-issues-26-to-31)).

17 publications, 2010 to 2026 · 162 predictions

Measured under its own rule, not as a hit rate: which trends the publisher kept, renamed or dropped ([D33](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d33-trend-claims-persistence-across-the-publishers-own-editions-issues-26-to-31)). [See the series](/hindsight/deloitte/tech-trends).

[Technology, Media and Telecommunications Predictions](/hindsight/deloitte/tmt-predictions)Dated predictions

Validated: two blind graders, an adjudicator on every disagreement, and an agent audit of a fixed sample ([D20](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d20-agents-do-all-grading-adjudication-and-audit-amends-d7-d11)).

25 publications, 2002 to 2026 · 466 predictions

70%

050%100%

hit rate, 171 of 245, 95% interval 56% to 83% with the audit error applied ([D28](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d28-the-audit-error-rate-widens-every-published-interval-d11-issue-61))

Light band: with the audit error. Dark bar: count-only interval 64% to 75%.

-   hit171
-   partial31
-   miss43
-   unfalsifiable3
-   ungradable195
-   contested7

1.  450claims
    
    each graded by two agents who cannot see each other's verdict ([D7](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d7-agentic-verdicts-with-independent-agreement))
    
2.  →
    
    378agreed
    
    agreement beyond chance, kappa 0.73
    
3.  →
    
    72settled
    
    the graders disagreed; a third agent decided ([D20](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d20-agents-do-all-grading-adjudication-and-audit-amends-d7-d11))
    
4.  →
    
    107audited
    
    an agent re-checked a fixed sample of agreed verdicts: 1 corrected, 7 left unsettled ([D11](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md#d11-validation-thresholds))
    
5.  →
    
    443published
    
    7 contested: no verdict publishes
    

How testable the claims were

under 1% too vague to test

3 of 450. unfalsifiable: the plausible readings give different verdicts.

43% no public measure

195 of 450. ungradable: nothing measures what the claim states at its date.

---
Data, code and grading rules are public at [github.com/envisioning/hindsight](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight). Data under CC BY 4.0 (the BCB Focus survey under ODbL), code under MIT. Every rule is in [the decision log](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/blob/main/docs/DECISIONS.md). Think a verdict is wrong? [Open a dispute](https://github.com/envisioning/hindsight/issues/new?template=dispute-verdict.yml).
---