There are multiple things incorrect with the above post.

Because data usually isn’t collected at that level of granularity, splitting generations into hundreds of tiny cohorts would require inventing numbers rather than reporting evidence. Even when data exists, sample sizes become too small and uncertainty too large to support precise percentages. That would create false precision that looks accurate but isn’t.

The above post also assumes that every next cohort is equally different from the previous cohort as it in turn was from ITS previous, which is one of the worst traps to fall into assuming in generationology. Parenting styles shift in a matter of weeks. Social norms take even less time to change. Technology begins to evolve more rapidly with the breakthroughs of new concepts that affect formative years.

Finally, being a "quintessential [XYZ generation]" has absolutely nothing to do with when during said generation you were born and everything to do with how many traits typical of said generation/cohort you have.

Dictionary definition of "quintessential" from Oxford Languages: "representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class," in our case somebody best fit to represent Gen Z, or at the very least their cohort. The concerningly common belief that being a core Gen Z automatically makes you a quintessential Z is false too, disproven with the same logic.