The convention in competitive games is that a balance patch arrives as a list of assertions. A number moved. The studio believed it should move. The community argues about whether it should have, using data the studio has and they do not, and the argument goes nowhere because it cannot.
Sundari Sector publishes the data. Pick rate, win rate at each rank band, and the specific distribution that motivated the change. Four years of this has produced a community that argues in a completely different register: not about whether a character is strong, but about whether the studio has weighted low-rank data too heavily against high-rank data, which is a real methodological question.
It has also cost the studio arguments it would otherwise have won by default. There was a patch last year where the published data plainly did not support the change and the community said so within an hour, with charts. The studio reverted it. Under the old convention that patch would have stood.
The interesting part is what it has done to trust. Players accept nerfs to characters they main at a rate I have not seen elsewhere, because they can check the reasoning. Transparency is not a marketing posture here, it is a mechanism, and it works because it is falsifiable.
