My team at Facebook in the 2010s made many such reports.
We did that work because our mandate was to understand the users and how to serve them.
We did that with full good natured ethical intent.
We turned the findings in to project proposals and MVPs.
The ones that were revenue negative were killed by leadership after all that work, repeat cycle.
Interesting. Any sense whether that system was consciously constructed? (Like, Task a group to generate product changes appealing to users, and then cherrypick the ones that are profitable, to get/maintain profitable good product.)
Or was it not as conscious, more an accident of following industry conventions for corporate roles, and corporate inefficiency&miscommunication?
It was extremely scientifically methodical. Everything is designed from UX and other sources of holistic research. Then validated with the most built-out AB test system you can imagine. Only winners are kept.
Meta is doing this thousands of times per month, all the time.