Abandonment data gives you a cleaner three-way split. Tools with high never-adopted or tried-and-dropped rates should be candidates to drop outright, regardless of how the usage dashboard frames it. Tools with decaying usage are candidates to repair, through a targeted workflow fix, a better integration or retraining on the tasks where trust broke down.

Tools with genuinely sustained retention are candidates to concentrate spend on, including expanding seats faster than the standard rollout cadence would suggest. Where two tools serve the same population, the one holding its cohort should be taking seats from the one that is not.

And put two asks into the next agreement you sign: define what counts as an active user before signature, and require event-level usage export rather than the summary dashboard. That is the difference between measuring this properly next year and relitigating definitions in a business review.