Why does someone with a 2 year positive history get auto-banned for one bad comment? Shouldn't the ban bots be smarter than that?

Not only was it technical wizardry, but it was a huge gamble.

According to the article, Take AWS for instance. The business had no right to succeed. It violated all sorts of textbook rules about brand elasticity, market positioning, core competency management and so forth.

He lambasts Google for the same risk taking with Google+

His point was that it is a gamble as part of a greater strategy

By just throwing the RJ Metrics data at the VC's like that, aren't you asking them to do a lot of extra work that they shouldn't have to?

Wouldn't it be better to prepare some sort of story for you data, present that to them, then say, "Don't just take our word for it, take a look at the data for yourselves"? That way, they're sure not to miss the major components that differentiate your company.

(I obviously am no expert on this.)

If you are a startup with close to $100M in revenues in someways you want the investors who are willing to do the work themselves. Early stage companies need to sell a story. More established ones want investors who understand the story they are already telling.

This advice is solid but I'd think that there are very few companies which it fits.

Data speaks volumes at any stage. Fab is an extreme example though stating key metrics upfront goes a long way in capturing interest. If you're looking for a seed round to build metrics, at least show that you know which metrics to optimize and that you have a detailed plan on how to test & refine them