How is no analysis just as good?

It's hard to believe that the percentage of successes with no analysis is GTE the percentage of successes with some analysis.

I presume because faulty analysis or bad data can actually get you more off track than when its just a "back of the napkin" based guess or hunch.

And additionally, you now have the pride/confidence thing in your even worse results because you did "analysis"...

Often the pride is constant.

As always, you need to take the limitations of the available information into account. That ought to be part of the analysis, though of course it often, or perhaps usually, isn't.

Not at all. Analysis of limited data gives you wide credible intervals, the exact thing that guards against unwarranted confidence.

Are you saying that zero middle ground exists?

Obviously a middle ground exists, but it's possible that in part of the scale you get worse results as you head toward the middle.

I didn't downvote you :(

Sorry - edited. Still didn't answer the question, though :p