In 1998, Terry McNulty presented a paper surveying 41 metallurgical and chemical processingProcessing plant case histories, identifying dominant causes of success and failure (McNulty T (1998) Innovative technology: its development and commercialization. In: Kuhn M (ed) Managing innovation in the minerals industry. SME: 1–14.; McNulty in Min Eng 50:50–55, 1998;). Available data yielded four curves portraying achievement rates of designDesign capacity for projects, from successful to unsuccessful. Identifiable characteristics were tabulated, establishing guidelines for project planning or prioritization of projects competing for capital. Updates were presented in 2004, 2014, and 2024. The interpretations of success and failure have remained unchanged, i.e., quality of underlying information, development of process designProcess design criteria, experience and commitment of the project owner, and avoidance of fast-track schedules that could suppress careful decision making. Some projects appear to defy the original criteria underlying the curves. This contradiction encouraged our reflection: The original criteria may need updating, but there could be other factors impacting ramp-up performancePerformance of projects. While some new projects may belong on an “Accelerated Series 1 Curve”, some may be misrepresented by the “Promoter’s Curve”, which is not empirically based, yet some project owners may be tempted to present it to financing firms, resulting in disappointed stakeholders and shareholders. This paper explores these aspects related to ramp-up performancePerformance of projects.