Yes. I also found that in many cases being able to turn problems that require discrete decisions into problems that admit continuous decisions, eg by re-arranging how the business works etc, can unlock a lot of business value.

In my concrete cases I mostly saw that in the direct sense of being able to deploy more mathematics and operations research, eg for netting out (partially) offsetting financial instruments for a bank.

But by introspection you can come up with more example. Eg that's a common selling point for running your servers on AWS instead of building your own hardware.

I often make fun of McKinsey- style four quadrants when overused, but they really boil down to something that makes a lot of sense in communicating a problem space:

a) carefully choose the two most important dimensions of concern (as Alan Kay said: the correct point of view is worth 80 Iq points)

b) make them binary: are we happy here or do we need to change?

In a way similar to the pareto ratio, you keep a surprising amount of value in something “so simple it cant be possibly so useful”.

Of course, you can also weaponise the choice of axes for your (office) politics: pick the two axes right, and the policy outcome you want to pick might already be baked into the whole process from the start.