It’s a primary source. They know what people search for in their own site. That’s like me saying I found my job using a newspaper and you saying citation needed. I just told you what I know to be true.
Do you go around snapping ‘citation needed’ at anyone who tells you anything about their business? Madness.
A "primary source" also isn't in any way immune to rational inquiry. I don't mean for this parallel in any way to imply a relationship, but just look at our administration or any one of innumerable other examples to this end. Taking something at face value, to me at least, requires more than a decontextualized statement of fact when my immediate impulse is to question it (in this particular case).
For instance, define "job". Are we talking about a recommendation leading to a project for a contractor, or are we talking a full-time position? I mean, that's just the start. In what ways are they determining what constitutes "finding a job"? Talking to friends and friends of friends? Or directly messaging a corporation's page on Facebook?
There's a lot of squish here and I wish they were more forthcoming about what that statistic actually means.
A citation is a reference to a document where information came from in the first place. What document are you expecting to be cited here? A citation for some internal Facebook email where a manager asked for a stat and the data guys responded with a number? How's that going to help you if it's just the same number as in here?
If I tell you I saw a cat in my garden, and you demand 'citation needed', what do you want me to cough up? There's no document to cite. That's just me telling you what I saw.
I don't understand why questioning a statistic, or especially my use of the word "citation", is controversial.
Do you reject all new collected data because it doesn't come with a citation?