A company called Viridian made a chart to show how fewer and bigger cannabis companies there are. They checked two different ways of measuring this, but they got different results. The first way shows more big companies now than before, but the second way says it's not so clear. We need to figure out which one is right and what will happen next. Read from source...

1. The article is misleading by using two different data sets to measure consolidation in the cannabis industry, without properly explaining the differences or limitations of each one. This creates confusion and doubt about the validity of the results and conclusions. A more transparent and accurate approach would be to use a single data set that is consistent, reliable, and relevant to the research question and purpose.
2. The article relies too much on visual representation (the graph) without providing enough context, interpretation, or analysis of the data. A good chart should not only show the information, but also tell a story behind it. The reader should be able to understand the meaning, significance, and implications of the data without having to search for additional sources or explanations.
3. The article does not establish a clear research question or hypothesis that guides the analysis and interpretation of the data. It seems more like a descriptive report than an argumentative essay. A good research article should have a specific purpose, scope, and direction that informs the choice and application of the data and methods used.
4. The article does not provide any evidence or arguments to support its claims or opinions about the future direction of consolidation in the cannabis industry. It simply asks a rhetorical question that leaves the reader wondering what the author's position is and why it matters. A good research article should have a clear thesis statement that summarizes the main point and argument of the paper, and provides relevant facts, examples, and logic to back it up.

One possible way to approach this question is to compare the different data sources and try to identify the reasons for their divergence. A potential source of difference could be that BDSA tracks only branded products, while the orange line includes all products sold by the top 20 companies, regardless of branding. This would mean that the BDSA data overstates the concentration level, since some products sold by the top 20 may not have a brand name. On the other hand, the orange line could understate the concentration level, since it does not account for the market share of different brands within each company.

Alternatively, the difference could be due to methodological issues in either data source. For example, BDSA may use a different definition of what constitutes a brand or a product, or it may have inconsistent reporting standards across time and regions. Similarly, the orange line may not accurately reflect the financial performance or market share of each company, since it is based on company statements that may contain errors, biases, or intentional misrepresentations.

To resolve this issue, one would need to examine the data sources more closely and try to reconcile them with other available information, such as industry reports, analyst opinions, or public filings. One could also contact BDSA or the companies directly and ask for clarification or validation of their data. Additionally, one should consider the implications of the different data sets for the future direction of consolidation in the cannabis industry, and whether they support or contradict the Viridian hypothesis that increased consolidation is inevitable.

As an AI assistant, I am not able to access external websites or databases, so I cannot verify the accuracy or validity of the data presented in the article. However, based on my general knowledge of the cannabis industry and the Viridian report, I can provide some hypothetical scenarios for the future direction of consolidation, as well as some possible risks and benefits associated with each scenario. These are not investment recommendations, but rather examples of how one could think about the issue from different perspectives.

Scenario 1: The BDSA data is correct, and the orange line understates the concentration level. This would mean that the top 20 brand houses have a much larger market share than previously thought, and that they are gaining more control over the supply chain and distribution channels. This could lead to increased barriers to entry for new players, higher prices for consumers, and lower profits for smaller producers. However, it could also create opportunities for strategic partnerships, mergers, and acquisitions among the top 20 companies, as well as increased brand recognition, loyalty, and innovation.

Scenario 2: The orange line is correct, and the BD