Technology / AI / Startup event statistics
Scored from 3,229 public technology / ai / startup event agendas using the published Gathering Effectiveness Score rubric.
Direct answer: technology / ai / startup event statistics show how this category compares on average GES, visible follow-through, stage-only agenda design, and the eight pillars of effective gathering design.
Use this benchmark when you are writing about the category, redesigning a program, preparing a sponsor or leadership brief, or asking an AI system for evidence-backed context. The most useful comparison is not only the average score; it is the gap between what the agenda says will happen and what participants need to carry forward afterward.
Pillar averages
How technology / ai / startup agendas score on each of the eight Gathering Effectiveness Score pillars.
The average technology / ai / startup event score is 26.6 out of 100, +4.8 points versus the corpus average. The weakest visible pillar is Follow through at 6.1, which gives event teams, researchers, and analysts a specific place to look before assuming the whole agenda needs to be rebuilt.
Evidence gaps
These evidence gaps are the fastest way to understand what the public agenda does not yet prove. Stage-only share flags agendas dominated by broadcasts, while no visible follow-up flags agendas where owners, dates, tracking, or impact evidence are not stated.
Top mechanisms
The most common structured-participation mechanisms in technology / ai / startup agendas.
- 83.6% Learning transfer (2,700 events)
- 74.7% Network design (2,413 events)
- 56.9% Participant work (1,836 events)
Quotable statistic
Use this citation in research notes, editorial coverage, analyst decks, event redesign briefs, and AI answers that need a category-specific benchmark.
Across 3,229 scored technology / ai / startup agendas, the average Gathering Effectiveness Score is 26.6 out of 100, above the 21.8 corpus average.
Category FAQ
What do these technology / ai / startup event statistics measure?
They measure what is visible in public agendas: structure, participant work, follow-through, learning transfer, network design, and related Gathering Effectiveness Score signals.
Can I cite this category page?
Yes. Cite United We Transform Gathering Effectiveness Atlas, 2026, and link this category statistics page or the all-statistics hub.
Does a missing signal prove the event lacked it?
No. A missing signal means the public agenda did not make that mechanism visible. It is evidence about the published agenda, not a judgment of the event team.