Reputation is not the same as usable proof
A recognised firm can still be difficult to credit for a specific answer. Compare a broad claim with no named source or time frame with a current claim whose author, basis and scope are clear. The second gives a reader something it can inspect; reputation alone does not.
The important point is that authority can exist inside the firm while the public basis for one buyer question remains weak or ambiguous.
This is a different problem from one missing citation. The question is whether the firm has made its authority for this buyer need sufficiently clear and inspectable in public.
More content is not always the answer
Public accessibility matters to search-enabled answers, but access alone does not make a source useful. A reader still needs to understand what is being claimed, where it comes from and whether it still applies. Those qualities can often be strengthened without publishing the paid conclusion.
Delphic identifies which missing proof matters for the buyer question before the firm changes anything.