Based on the comments, no. And I am looking at this chart and wondering how? The flow removes a layer of information. Look, if you like Elon, that's fine, but if you don't care about actually creating a nice chart then why are you here? It doesn't help your point and it's just bizarre. You can reply to this comment if you wish, but I don't know what a back and forth is gonna do at this point if you're resistant to any commentary that isn't agreement with what I will now just say is a flawed chart that tells people nothing except that you like Elon Musk a lot.

>They have the biggest market share in the world in its niche (commercial launches). So, there is no ambiguity here.

Being a world leader implies some level of position and power. If you're in a niche field, you really aren't a world leader. You're just the only one doing it. I don't think there are a lot of SpaceX type companies that will pop up in the near future. This is the issue with using vague terms because we can go back and forth on this.

>In the AI community, they're regarded as one of the top labs. Almost no one else, aside from DeepMind, have contributed so much to the AI research.

OpenAi was founded in 2015. So my mind immediately said this is likely not a true statement. And a Google search says it's not really true - they, along with DeepMind and FAIR, just get a lot more press. 1,2

"DeepMind, OpenAI and FAIR were probably the top three pure AI research labs in terms of known funding, while IBM pushes out more patents.” (3)

I just clicked the first three links when Googling "leading AI researching labs." I don't doubt they are good at what they do, but there have been people with their towel in the race for a decade, so your claim seemed dubious enough to investigate. Again, the issue is the term "world leader." There are also Chinese tech companies mentioned in the same article as the quote and these lists are very Western-centric from my POV. This is a niche field, so all you would need to do is expand "global leader" to top thirty. You will not only capture all of them, but OpenAI would likely rank then and the statement has some merit as a technicality. But just because it's one of the only two you know, doesn't mean it's the world leader.

>The choice to leave off Twitter is pretty telling to me that there is some kind of agenda here

This circles back to what this chart is trying to say. You can include footnotes in charts. Also SolarCity doesn't have a "fate" associated with it -- why does "fate" matter? Why not say he "acquired it" - a neutral, factual statement? Or that it hasn't generated a profit - also a factual statement? You could have presented it.

>"Unicorn startup" is a common term in the business field: a startup that has a valuation of at least $1 bln

Your assumed audience is not business people though and even if it were, it sounds like English-speaking slang rather than professional business language that doesn't belong in a presentation. Use Plain Language and avoid jargon.