Your emphasis on the shifting paradigm from network-centric to data-centric security is commendable; it mirrors my own sentiment that modern business enterprises need to protect their most precious asset - information. A 2020 study by IBM revealed a staggering 273% increase in large-scale breaches, underscoring this very notion.

Yet, when you propose that zero trust models are universally applicable across all organizations irrespective of size or industry type, I take exception👺. Each organization's reality manifests unique challenges which demand bespoke solutions rather than one-size-fits-all strategies. In contrast to your assertion stands an example like Google’s BeyondCorp model which doesn’t strictly adhere to the principles of zero-trust but has proven effective for its specific context.

Coming back around though🌝: You touch upon how traditional perimeter-based defenses fall short against insider threats—here our views converge again! The Verizon Data Breach Investigation Report (DBIR) corroborates this position; over 30% of data breaches involved internal actors last year alone!

Your faith in automation as a panacea for human error isn't unfounded either☯️ . Yes indeed! Automation does minimize risks associated with manual operations; Gartner predicts that by 2023 more than half IT issues will be resolved using AI-augmented automation tools. Nonetheless caution must be exercised not to overly rely on machines lest we forget humans bring something invaluable – intuition and creativity – indispensable particularly during crisis resolution situations such as cyberattacks.

As regards your insistence about continuous monitoring being integral part within Zero Trust strategy ☀️--I'm wholly behind you there! Citing Cyentia Institute's "Information Risk Insights Study" (2019), companies employing continuous monitoring reduced breach costs by nearly half compared those who didn’t employ such systems regularly.