{"q": "Does an aggregate-pool conservation check hold: do total mission-linked publications and total distinct first-author teams across ALL Earth missions (open plus restricted) rise after each adoption wave, or is the positive ATT(g,t) exactly offset by a decline on the restricted control missions over the same calendar periods (pure reallocation)?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["open data citation advantage aggregate effect", "publication reallocation versus expansion bibliometric", "ADS Web of Science total Earth science publication count trend", "displacement effect scientific output policy"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Did unique authors and unique institutions ENTER Earth-science publishing after open release (genuine community expansion), or did existing authors re-sort across missions (the mission being the wrong unit for the productivity question)?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["new entrant authors open data remote sensing", "institutional entry scientific publishing open access", "researcher-level versus mission-level unit of analysis bibliometrics", "community formation open Earth observation data"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "What pre-registered joint pattern (open-mission distribution UP and matched restricted-mission distribution DOWN) is accepted as falsifying expansion in favor of displacement, and are DAAC/Earthdata logs scoped to the control missions over the same window so the download mechanism check can distinguish growth from substitution?", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["DAAC distribution log control mission scope", "download substitution versus expansion test", "Earthdata distribution volume restricted mission", "falsifier displacement scientific data reuse"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Does the post-adoption break collapse toward zero in mission-period cells lacking mature DAAC ingest, DOI minting, and a nontrivial pre-existing user community, in which case the recommendation is 'build the archive' not 'go open'?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["DAAC ingest maturity scientific use", "persistent identifier DOI dataset citation effect", "curation infrastructure open data benefit conditional", "containing system apparatus open release"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "What are the calibrated stratum-level preconditions (minimum community size, curation-maturity level, citable-identifier capability) an analyst must verify in a NEW containing system (no-DAAC agency, commercial regime, foreign archive) before the open-release recommendation transports there?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["open data benefit preconditions transportability", "minimum user community size threshold data reuse", "curation maturity level external validity", "bounded conditional open data policy recommendation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Is the null-yield containing-system condition checkable in the assembled panel, i.e. do the data resolve distinct downloading institutions per mission-period and a measurable sensor-class community size so the access-cost-not-binding falsifier can be executed?", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "ackoff", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["distinct downloading institutions DAAC log", "binding constraint diagnostic access cost", "sensor class user community size measure", "falsifiable null open data mechanism"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "What is the pre-registered evidence that adoption timing is NOT chosen in anticipation of the measured outcome, specifically a first-stage regression of each mission's pre-adoption publication slope on observable anticipated-demand proxies (preceding distribution-log growth, community size, product-maturity level)?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["no anticipation test difference in differences", "selection on expected trend adoption timing", "anticipated demand proxy pre-trend regression", "first-stage anticipation event study"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "For how many (g,t) cells does the clean matched not-yet-treated control pool fall to one or zero missions, and what is the pre-registered bright-line rule (drop ATT(g,t) whose clean matched control pool < k, weight zero in the aggregate) for declaring a cell uninterpretable before aggregation?", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["staggered DiD thin control cell rule", "Callaway Sant'Anna clean comparison group count", "minimum control count per cohort cell", "aggregation weight uninterpretable cell threshold"], "status": "partial"}
{"q": "Can a placebo ATT(g,t) on a NON-mission-linked Earth-science publication count over the same sensor-class strata and calendar window, built from ADS/WoS coverage metadata, show the index-coverage expansion nets to zero across treated and clean-control groups rather than masquerading as the open-data effect (especially differential coverage growth across sensor-class strata)?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["citation index coverage placebo test", "ADS Web of Science coverage expansion bias", "differential index growth by subfield bibliometric", "non-mission-linked publication count placebo DiD"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Under the simple group-size, dynamic event-time, and calendar aggregation schemes, what per-cohort weights does each assign, and are the sign and magnitude of the overall effect stable, or do one or two heavily-weighted early cohorts (Landsat-class) carry the headline?", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["Callaway Sant'Anna aggregation scheme weights", "leave-out-largest-cohort sensitivity DiD", "calendar versus dynamic weighting event study", "cohort weight Landsat dominance"], "status": "partial"}
{"q": "With a near-universal absorbing SMD open-release policy, is the never-treated pool empty or non-comparable, and against exactly which control units is the final cohort's ATT(g,t) identified (report never-treated counts, their pre-period output trajectory vs treated, and trim the right tail where lags rest on thin not-yet-treated comparisons)?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["absorbing treatment never-treated pool DiD", "not-yet-treated comparison last cohort identification", "right tail event study thin control trimming", "near-universal adoption staggered design"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "On which parallel-trends scale (levels vs proportional/log-link) is the claim made, and are the pre-period leads flat on THAT scale, so the sensor-class heterogeneity result is not a functional-form scale artifact?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["parallel trends functional form sensitivity scale", "Roth Sant'Anna parallel trends levels logs", "count outcome log link leads test flat", "scale artifact heterogeneity difference in differences"], "status": "partial"}
{"q": "Where does the design measure the user-side transaction cost directly (time to discover, register, obtain, ingest, reach analysis-ready; time-to-first-publication after first access; support-ticket volume; processing-level at release) rather than inferring it from the binary license label, and does it show that cost fell at the adoption date?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["time to analysis ready data transaction cost measure", "processing level at release data reuse cost", "time to first publication after data access", "user-side access cost direct measurement Earth observation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Can the candidate identify at least one mission where going open coincided with a drop in product-processing level, loss of funded user-support, or removal of curation, and show whether the event-study coefficient there is negative or null (the falsifying reciprocal case where openness raised the effective cost of reuse)?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["open release curation withdrawal reuse cost", "funded user support removal data repository", "reciprocal cost shift user open data", "negative null treatment effect service removal"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Which mission-level cost data (DAAC operating cost, curation labor, infrastructure spend per mission-period) will be brought onto the same ledger as the citation gain so a positive ATT can be shown to be a net welfare improvement rather than gross usage a more expensive institution purchased?", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["DAAC operating cost per mission", "curation labor cost data repository ledger", "net welfare versus gross benefit open data", "cost-benefit open data infrastructure NASA"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Per mission-period, who is the least-cost avoider of residual access friction, and can the post-adoption citation rise be shown (via Earthdata/DAAC logs plus the frozen linkage rule) to track mission-side friction reductions rather than users absorbing more search-and-ingest cost themselves?", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["least cost avoider access friction reciprocal", "mission-side friction reduction citation", "cost incidence split open data user", "search and ingest cost downstream researcher"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Can a typology of restricted regimes (funded support desks, brokered/intermediary distribution, commercial value-added resellers) be built from the hand-coded register and ATT estimated against the LOWEST-friction restricted comparator rather than the pooled control, to test whether open beats a real alternative or only beats neglect?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["restricted data regime typology comparator", "lowest friction feasible alternative comparison", "value-added reseller brokered data distribution", "comparative institutional ATT non-pooled control"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Using distribution logs against adoption dates, can the share of post-adoption access flowing through mission/DAAC-hosted channels versus third-party intermediaries be measured and the citation break attributed to the internalized (hierarchy) versus the market (intermediary) channel?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "coase", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["distribution channel split DAAC third-party", "make versus buy data distribution channel", "cloud-hosted analysis platform reuse share", "intermediary transaction cost reduction attribution"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Does the placebo-on-never-treated series (mission-linked publication and dataset-citation counts for a fixed never-treated cohort, re-harvested from successive ADS/WoS index vintages) move, and is its slope distinguishable from the post-adoption lags, isolating coverage/data-citation-norm drift inside the indexing database from the treatment?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["never-treated placebo re-harvest index vintage", "citation database backfill coverage drift", "frozen counting rule moving index bias", "placebo slope versus post-adoption lags"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "What is the coverage definition and gross/net netting rule for the Earthdata/DAAC distribution count (which download events are gross, which are netted as duplicate/bot/re-pull), is the log series continuous across the policy date, and does the pre-publication distribution break survive netting of bot and machine-to-machine traffic rather than being a logging-instrumentation artifact co-timed with adoption?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["download event netting bot machine-to-machine", "distribution log coverage boundary definition", "logging instrumentation change co-timed treatment", "gross net distribution count continuity policy date"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Per matched sensor-class stratum, how many treated missions versus genuinely never-treated controls, and what share of the aggregated ATT is carried by the optical-imager stratum alone, so a 'multi-mission identified estimate' is not one Landsat-class natural experiment in a difference-in-differences coat?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["per stratum treated control mission count", "optical imager stratum ATT weight share", "sensor class effective sample size DiD", "Landsat dominance pooled estimate concentration"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Using the McMillan-Rodrik within/reallocation identity on the count outcome, how much of the post-adoption rise is real expansion of the production boundary versus re-attribution of existing publishing activity from never-/not-yet-treated missions, and does the control-pool sign pattern show conservation (re-attribution) or true expansion?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["within reallocation decomposition McMillan Rodrik", "conservation identity publication count expansion", "re-attribution cross-mission publishing churn", "control pool sign pattern boundary expansion"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Is measurement error in mission-linked citations correlated with treatment because a mission going open at calendar T is observed at a different point in its datasets' citation-accrual curve than a control at the same event time, and what netting rule (age-alignment plus pre-trend accrual differencing) removes the accrual-lag component from the level break?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["citation accrual curve event time bias", "dataset age citation window maturation", "measurement error proxy correlated treatment", "accrual lag netting level break"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Report a value-weighted or distinct-contributor-weighted outcome (raw count, distinct first-author teams, distinct institutions) alongside the raw count, and pre-specify the divergence (gross-to-distinct ratio climbing post-treatment) accepted as evidence the raw count overstates the welfare gain by drawing in low-marginal-value, redundant, or duplicative uses.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "kuznets", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["distinct contributor weighted publication outcome", "gross output value added netting bibliometric", "redundant duplicative use welfare overstatement", "distinct institution distinct first author series"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the loss function: what dollar value or marginal scientific finding does one additional mission-linked paper/citation represent, what threshold effect size on the event-study path is too small to justify open-release infrastructure, and what is the breakeven publications-per-DAAC-dollar against curation costs?", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["loss function value per scientific publication", "breakeven publications per dollar data infrastructure", "shadow price marginal scientific finding", "substantive versus statistical significance effect size threshold"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Which of the three defenses (frozen matching rule, no-prior-affiliation cut, distribution logs) distinguishes a paper that would not exist absent open release from one that would have existed but now names the mission because citation became easier, and is there a held-out separating test (e.g. a placebo on missions that adopted a data-citation norm with no access-cost change)?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["data citation norm placebo access cost separation", "attribution shift versus access shift bibliometric", "held-out separating test relabeling", "counting versus new output open data"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "What panel observable distinguishes 'open release enlarged the user community' from 'open release let the already-large community publish more' (the incumbent-friendly-standard reading), and does the policy recommendation survive if the effect concentrates in missions that were already publication-rich?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["new entrant versus incumbent intensification open data", "incumbent-friendly standard barrier to entry", "publication-rich mission effect concentration", "entry versus intensification decomposition Earth observation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Name the estimand against the mandate counterfactual: does the prospectus state whether the target is the selected-adopter effect (ATT on the willing vanguard) or a population-average / marginal-adopter / policy-relevant treatment effect, and on what authority does an ATT on self-selected adopters get recommended as evidence for a mandate on the unwilling?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["policy relevant treatment effect mandate counterfactual", "ATT versus marginal adopter estimand", "Heckman Vytlacil policy relevant parameter", "selected adopter effect mandate extrapolation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Compute the breakeven publications-per-DAAC-dollar on the marginal unit (the thinnest, latest-adopting, least-publication-rich strata and small-community sensor classes), and report whether the benefit-over-cost ratio that justifies a mandate survives on the marginal adopter rather than the flattering pooled average.", "facet": "economics", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["marginal stratum breakeven cost benefit", "marginal adopter return open data mandate", "small community sensor class effect cost", "benefit cost ratio marginal versus average"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Can the design produce a treatment-effect-versus-baseline-propensity gradient (MTE / continuous-DiD on pre-adoption distinct-user count, product-maturity, prior publication stock) with adequate power on tens of missions, and does the resulting marginal-mission bound overturn the mandate recommendation, or does the design average the gradient away?", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "mccloskey", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["marginal treatment effect baseline propensity gradient", "continuous treatment difference in differences dose", "effect versus pre-adoption community size", "power thin matching pool gradient estimation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Does the register contain a non-empty set of license-only missions (access license flipped but discoverability and tooling unchanged) so the event-study coefficient is attributable to the access-cost rule rather than a co-bundled organizational build-out?", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["license only change discoverability unchanged", "FAIR functional openness flag register", "access rule versus organizational buildout separation", "license flip tooling identifier decomposition"], "status": "partial"}
{"q": "Supply a DIRECT cardinal per-mission transaction-cost metric (fee schedule in dollars, registration step count, license-negotiation latency, time-to-first-byte for an unaffiliated user) coded under status quo and reform, and regress event-study coefficient magnitude on that metered cost-drop rather than the ordinal four-class prior-regime contrast.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["cardinal transaction cost metric per mission", "time to first byte unaffiliated user", "registration step count license latency", "dose response metered cost drop effect size"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce per-mission de-jure (policy adoption) versus de-facto (date an unaffiliated user could obtain analysis-ready data without registration, fee, or missing tooling) dates, and show the event-study coefficient path survives re-anchoring to the de-facto rule-change date if the two diverge by a year or more for a material share of missions.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["de jure de facto rule change lag", "operative access date analysis ready", "event study re-timing de facto date", "rule in use versus announcement institution"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Classify which missions adopt open release early vs late by the institutional position of their sponsoring organization (PI-team incumbency, DAAC operator, commercial-data contract, international data-sharing obligation), and test whether selection on organizational rule-making power, not access cost, is what the matched-on-sensor-class-and-age design leaves uncontrolled.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["adoption timing endogenous organizational position", "incumbent intermediary selection adoption late", "sponsor institutional position covariate", "rule-making power selection difference in differences"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show from DAAC distribution logs and license records that 'restricted' control missions did not undergo partial informal liberalization (de-facto open via mirror archives, third-party redistribution, relaxed enforcement) that would contaminate the parallel-trends comparison and bias the ATT toward zero.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["restricted control informal liberalization leakage", "mirror archive third-party redistribution enforcement", "control contamination attenuation toward zero", "operative rule versus label control group"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct an ex-ante ordinal governance-bundle index (boundary/metadata provenance, attribution/data-citation enforcement, curation/usage-log monitoring, graduated handling of non-conforming reuse, nested DAAC-to-directorate authority) per mission-period and run a horse-race showing whether the event-study effect is driven by the license-change flag alone or by the curation-and-attribution bundle that moved with it.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["governance bundle ordinal index horse race", "license flag versus curation attribution bundle", "Ostrom design principles data commons coding", "FAIR status attribution enforcement covariate"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Using Earthdata/DAAC logs against the date each mission's datasets received citable persistent identifiers (DOIs), separate a distribution-led access-cost (North) effect from a DOI-led attribution (Ostrom monitoring) effect via the joint timing of the distribution break, the DOI-issuance date, and the citation break; and confirm the no-prior-affiliation specification isolates new impersonal use rather than only the attribution-enforceable subset.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["dataset DOI issuance date distribution break timing", "access cost versus attribution monitoring mechanism", "persistent identifier citation lead lag", "impersonal use attribution enforceable subset"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "From DAAC user-registration or distribution-account records, measure whether the appropriator (user) community was already organized before the open transition or constituted alongside it (DAAC user-services, working groups, applications program), and re-run the event study controlling for community-formation timing to separate the effect of openness from the effect of a community being convened around the data.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["user community formation timing DAAC registration", "community convened around data confound", "appropriator community pre-organized openness", "control community formation event study"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct a provision-side measure per mission-period (curation/support staffing, reprocessing cadence, distribution-cost-per-download) from the Earthdata/DAAC ledger and test whether the post-adoption publication rise is bounded or eroded where provision capacity did not scale with appropriation, rather than coding 'open' as a frictionless terminal state.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["provision side curation staffing measure DAAC", "reprocessing cadence distribution cost per download", "appropriation provision congestion data commons", "provision capacity scaling publication bound"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Build an ordinal rules-in-use index of the institutional bundle per mission-period (license terms, persistent-identifier tooling, DAAC discoverability/support norms, third-party brokers) from DAAC docs, FAIR-status coding and license records, and show the treated-vs-control ATT is driven by the appropriation-cost rule named rather than co-varying monitoring/tooling/intermediary institutions the binary subsumes.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["rules in use index institutional bundle", "appropriation cost rule versus tooling intermediary", "binary treatment confounded institutions", "FAIR license PID broker coding"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "From the adoption-date register plus COPUOS/SMD policy provenance, code each adoption as self-organized (collective-choice) versus externally imposed (directorate-wide SMD mandate) and estimate the ATT separately, to see whether the yield comes from the access-cost change or from a pre-existing organized appropriator community capable of acting on it.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "ostrom", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["self-organized versus imposed adoption provenance", "collective choice mandate ATT split", "adoption provenance exchangeability falsification", "SMD policy provenance coding register"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce from the SMD Scientific Information Policy record and the register the count of externally-compelled (exogenous mandate: directorate cutoff, budget cycle, archive-migration schedule) versus operator-chosen adoptions, so the design has an a-priori exogeneity source rather than a flat-leads robustness check on a confound it never broke.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["exogenous mandate adoption date count", "compelled versus operator-chosen adoption register", "SMD Scientific Information Policy mandate cutoff", "design-stage exogeneity selection on trends"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "How many distinct calendar adoption dates exist in the register, and what share of treated missions cluster on the single SMD-policy date versus idiosyncratic mission dates, so the staggered DiD does not collapse to a disguised one-shot interrupted time series confounded by a directorate-level history threat?", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["distinct calendar adoption date dispersion", "staggered DiD collapse interrupted time series", "directorate policy common shock clustering", "adoption date dispersion register count"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Does the distribution-log break match the publication break in magnitude and timing per mission, and on what fraction of missions do Earthdata/DAAC logs actually exist BEFORE the adoption date so the convergence check is feasible rather than asserted (a per-mission pre-adoption log-availability inventory)?", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["pre-adoption DAAC log availability inventory", "distribution break publication break match per mission", "convergent operationalization feasibility download log", "instrumentation drift control series feasibility"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the explicit UTOS domain of validity as a populated two-column ledger built from the register and DAAC documentation, after adding the missing register fields (latency tier, ITAR/dual-use restriction class, agency/partner), assigning each mission to a column, and reporting which subpopulations the corpus actually contains observations for versus those conceded off-support.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["UTOS domain of validity two-column ledger", "register field ITAR latency tier agency", "on-support off-support subpopulation count", "external validity transportability NASA Earth science"], "status": "partial"}
{"q": "From the executed by-sensor-class ATT(g,t) table, does the effect SIGN flip across strata or does MAGNITUDE vary by more than the pre-registered Rambachan-Roth breakdown threshold, and what is the optical-imager stratum's share of treated missions and of pooled-ATT weight (the test of whether the pooled estimate is a stratum-specific result in a pooled costume)?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["by sensor class ATT sign flip magnitude", "optical imager pooled weight share", "Rambachan Roth breakdown threshold heterogeneity", "stratum-specific result pooled estimate transport"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Add ITAR/dual-use restriction-class and real-time-operational latency-tier as named, codable register exclusion axes so the localness concession for classified and real-time-operational archives is converted from an implicit hedge into an explicit, register-grounded boundary statement with a falsifying observable.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "shadish_cook_campbell", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["ITAR dual-use restriction class register axis", "real-time operational latency tier exclusion", "explicit codable boundary classified archive", "surface similarity falsifying observable transport"], "status": "partial"}