I am a little frustrated with the Forbes people.  I thought they were going to make their new 2023 list available by June 5.  If they did, they sure did not make any hoopla about it.  I think when i go to Forbes.com, all i get is last year's list, but i am not sure about that (just something i think).  

I found what i think is a list of the companies in the new Forbes Global 2000, but none of the financial information was provided, which, in and of itself, makes it a useless list from an analytical standpoint.

I have always had trouble getting one of these Forbes lists as it is, but before i go to the trouble of trying to do so again, i need to confirm that i am looking at the new list with new financial data.

From a "globanomics" perspective, i wouldn't not be surprised to see the U.S. (by itself) have more than 50.0% of all investments--thus, just further showing the justification for the 49.99% limit.

God, i hope the U.S. is operating with a better EGSB than i am--because mine kinda sucks, both on a frequency level and an user friendliness level. 

Forbes!  Put the damn thing out there on an Excel spreadsheet.  You shouldn't care whether you get paid for it or not.  It's simply a good marketing ploy because it might just bring to attention other Forbes Global 2000 lists, or things like that.  For public use,  Maybe even, in some way you could end up being somewhat the "unbiased authority", using your analytical template as the way to "look at things objectively".  You could even end up being an authority that "AI" could not refute.  And there are going to be many such needs in the future (where do you go to absolutely get the best known "authority" relating to the data, itself.)  AI can never be the source of authority.  AI, by definition, should have to find the best authoritized source, then source that source in its response to a question.  If the "source" makes sense based upon your knowledge, then you should be able to use the data.  If not, you might want to keep digging, because there is no reason to do a bunch of analysis without using data from an "authorized source".

ps.  Forbes!  I would like to say that i read a little about your methodology, and without getting bogged down in the details, it sounded somewhat like an approach that i would have taken.

ps2.  Forbes!  It would be interesting to me to know what the total "market value" of the 1,700 or so companies that you originally considered, but that did not make the 2000 list.  The reason is pure mathematical.  Although you had to leave 1,700 companies off your list, i will bet the "total market value" of the 1,700 companies pales in comparison to the 2000.   Which in turn, gives you all the more reason to believe what you are seeing with the 2000 by themselves.