Your chart is a complete fabrication.And your credibility is shot, thanks to that.
Did you mean to direct that to me or Errant? You listed me first. But that 0.6% article pretty you posted pretty much supports my claim. So I think that was directed at Errant, whose name seems appropriate.
It's NOT my chart. Just one I found, hurriedly, so you all wouldn't have to wait. There is a better one that I was goggling around far but couldn't locate, that is newer and ties the connections together with modern graphics.