{"q": "On the overlap window where both coarse milestone-to-milestone latency (1958-2026) and fine key-decision-point latency (modern subperiod) can be built from the same programs, report their Pearson correlation, the coarse-minus-fine level gap in months, and whether that gap is constant or drifts over time.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["NASA milestone interval latency two-resolution splice validation", "coarse fine measurement correlation level gap drift over time", "NTRS GAO key decision point milestone-to-milestone overlap window"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Re-estimate the latency-cost association under at least two independent deflators (NASA New Start Inflation Index versus an economy-wide GDP price deflator) and report how much beta moves; add the New Start Inflation Index source document to the corpus as a discrete citable, versioned source first.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["NASA New Start Inflation Index source document deflator", "GDP price deflator real cost growth space program", "deflator sensitivity cost overrun coefficient stability"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "For re-baselined programs, show the distribution of latency and cost-growth computed against the original versus the re-set baseline, and state which baseline the panel uses by era (informal practitioner targets pre-modern versus GAO/JCL-anchored commitments).", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["NASA program re-baseline original versus reset cost growth distribution", "joint confidence level baseline 70 percent GAO commitment", "era-heterogeneous baseline denominator cost growth schedule slip"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Publish the exact era-boundary rule: prove the periodization is derived from a documented structural break in a measured series (cost-growth, cadence, or appropriations), not from a chosen reform calendar co-determined with the authorization-regime treatment, and show the latency coefficient under at least two materially different defensible periodizations.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["structural break test periodization NASA cost growth cadence appropriations", "era boundary endogenous reform calendar treatment co-determination", "coefficient invariance alternative periodization sensitivity"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Decompose phase cost growth into a time-rate standing-cost component (priced from documented monthly burn during idle authorization intervals) and a residual, and show latency is associated with the residual (genuine productivity loss: rework, requirements churn, re-baselining) and not merely the standing-cost term elapsed schedule predicts by construction.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["growth accounting standing cost residual total factor productivity decomposition", "NASA monthly burn rate idle authorization standing cost", "rework requirements churn productivity loss cost growth residual"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce per-decade counts of program-phase observations and the share of latency values point-identified versus bounded, then re-estimate the latency association on the pre-1980 segment alone, so the panel can see whether the long-run claim survives outside the data-dense modern window or is a modern-NASA finding in historical costume.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["per-decade observation counts unbalanced panel coverage NASA 1958-1980", "point-identified versus bounded latency uncertainty bands", "pre-1980 segment re-estimation long-run robustness"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show from the assembled panel that residual within-program-within-era latency tracks a documented rule-of-the-game change (regress residual latency on a coded register of rule-text changes, reporting R-squared), rather than idiosyncratic case-handling noise; if residual latency is orthogonal to documented rule changes, the coefficient cannot speak to the institutional mechanism.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["residual latency regressed coded register rule-text changes R-squared", "institutions versus organizations rules of the game fixed effects", "NASA NPR procurement-reform rule change register documentary"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Validate, on a subset of programs, that documentary latency correlates with an independent de facto measure of when the decision was actually settled (internal correspondence timestamps, oral-history dates, working-group minutes), so the measure indexes the transaction cost of deciding and not the cadence of paperwork.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["de jure de facto rule gap documentary latency validation NASA", "internal correspondence oral history working-group minutes decision date", "construct validity transaction cost deciding paperwork cadence"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Demonstrate the exclusion restriction empirically: that authorizing-office workload affects cost growth, schedule slip, and cadence ONLY through latency and not through a direct congestion or rationing channel (zero partial association of workload with outcomes conditional on latency), given workload and the appropriations cycle are themselves products of the institutional matrix under test.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["exclusion restriction workload instrument partial association conditional latency", "congestion rationing channel direct effect cost schedule cadence", "appropriations cycle endogenous institutional matrix instrument validity"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Anchor the NASA latency-to-cost/schedule coefficient against at least one out-of-NASA institutional regime (DoD milestone-decision-authority SAR programs, ESA, or commercial fixed-price firm-commitment contracts) and report whether sign and magnitude survive a change of the funding-commitment rules.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["DoD Selected Acquisition Report cost overrun latency milestone decision authority", "ESA commercial fixed-price firm-commitment contract cost growth", "cross-institutional replication latency coefficient sign magnitude"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the scope condition formally: is H1 (latency drives overrun) a portable causal law or a property of NASA's institutional matrix that would weaken or reverse under fixed-price firm-commitment rules where the time cost of authorization is borne by the contractor? Name the specific rule-of-the-game feature the mechanism requires and predict the coefficient's direction when that feature is removed.", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["scope condition portable causal law institutional matrix transaction cost", "cost-reimbursement risk allocation annual re-authorization multi-layer review", "fixed-price firm-commitment contractor time cost coefficient direction"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Partition the NASA panel by documented internal rule-regime (named reorganizations and procurement-reform statutes; the appropriations/review/reserve rules of 1965, 1990, 2020 differ) and show the latency coefficient is stable across regimes rather than a composite averaging over distinct transaction-cost structures; if beta differs by regime, report it per regime.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "north", "priority": "normal", "query_terms": ["NASA internal rule-regime partition reorganization procurement-reform statute", "latency coefficient stability per-regime transaction-cost structure", "appropriations review reserve rules 1965 1990 2020 regime"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the stronger assumption that licenses reading the continuous-latency beta as a marginal effect (per +1 month), and show empirically whether the ATT(latency) curve is flat across the dose support or whether its slope is driven by selection-into-dose; absent that, restrict the claim to ATT-at-observed-dose.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["continuous treatment difference-in-differences selection into dose ATT", "marginal effect parallel trends dose-response homogeneity assumption", "ATT latency curve flat dose support cross-dose slope"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show the documentary distribution of the foreseeability-to-realization gap and report pre-period placebo ATT(g,t) on cost growth and schedule slip for cohorts entering each discrete regime; non-zero pre-period placebos mean no-anticipation fails and the latency coefficient is contaminated by anticipatory baseline-setting.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["no-anticipation assumption pre-period placebo ATT event study", "baseline gaming optimistic baseline anticipated latency violation", "pretest parallel trends low power sensitivity bounds"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Provide the Goodman-Bacon-style decomposition of the INSTRUMENTED (2SLS) estimand, not the OLS TWFE one: is the 2SLS latency coefficient a convex-weighted average of program-phase effects or does it place negative weight on some program-time cells, and does the exclusion restriction survive dynamic portfolio-difficulty spillovers?", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Goodman-Bacon decomposition instrumented 2SLS estimand negative weights", "convex weighted average program-time cells forbidden comparison", "dynamic portfolio-difficulty spillover exclusion restriction IV"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce the implied-weight (Goodman-Bacon / effective-sample) decomposition of the preferred FE-IV latency coefficient: each program's and each era's share of identifying variation, ranked, and show whether a handful of long-cycle flagships (Apollo, Shuttle, Constellation, SLS, JWST) supply the majority of the weight, in which case the estimand must be restated as the effect for that dominant subset.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["effective sample weights implied weight decomposition FE-IV", "flagship program weight concentration Apollo Shuttle Constellation SLS JWST", "wild cluster bootstrap few large programs estimand restatement"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Partition the panel by era regime (Apollo/Cold-War, Shuttle, post-Challenger, post-Constellation/commercial) and report ATT(latency) era-by-era rather than pooled; show whether the latency-cost association holds sign and magnitude within the modern regime a current manager operates in, or whether the pooled headline is carried by extinct early cohorts.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["era-by-era ATT latency disaggregated estimate modern regime", "pooled coefficient carried by extinct early cohorts Apollo Shuttle", "regime partition latency cost association sign magnitude"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the target population for the policy claim and demonstrate, from the panel's entry/exit/censoring structure, that the estimand's implicit weights match it: do cancelled/censored program-phases (Constellation, SLS upper stage, second mobile launcher) get weight proportional to managerial relevance, or does survivorship tilt the effective sample toward programs that completed despite their latency, breaking transportability to in-flight and future programs?", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "callaway_santanna", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["target population transportability estimand implicit weights managerial relevance", "censored cancelled program-phase survivorship tilt effective sample", "Constellation SLS upper stage second mobile launcher censoring"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show from the candidate's own panel that latency Granger-precedes cost/schedule trouble (and not vice versa) at the within-phase level, with an asymmetric cross-lag; if trouble predicts next-period latency as strongly as the reverse, the single-equation beta is a loop coefficient mislabeled as one-way cause.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["cross-lagged Granger precedence latency cost schedule trouble within-phase", "closed feedback loop open-loop coefficient single equation bias", "rework schedule pressure ripple effect bidirectional feedback"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "After documented latency-compressing regime switches (reorganizations cutting reporting layers; procurement reforms shortening authorization), does the post-regime cost-growth and schedule-slip trajectory bend as the static beta predicts, or does latency reappear elsewhere (informal pre-decision staffing, rework, reasserted reviews) so total elapsed program time does not fall?", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["policy resistance latency-compressing reorganization event study trajectory", "schedule pressure rework compensating loop elapsed time absorbed", "procurement reform shortening authorization total elapsed program time"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show the latency-to-outcome delay is shorter than the phase window, i.e. that a phase's latency consequences land within that phase rather than being carried into later phases; if the dominant delay exceeds the phase, the phase-level beta attributes to phase p an accumulation phase p only seeded (a stock-flow / bathtub timing error).", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["latency-to-outcome impulse response distributed lag phase window", "stock flow bathtub timing error accumulation seeded later phase", "within-program identification delay structure carried forward"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "On the modern KDP-dated subperiod, build a within-program count of authorization events per phase and test whether it rises endogenously as a phase's cost-growth accumulates, then report whether beta is stable once you condition on the loop's own state (delay -> requirements drift -> re-reviews -> added authorization events -> longer latency).", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["authorization event count per phase rises endogenously cost growth", "reinforcing loop requirements drift re-reviews latency endogeneity", "KDP-dated subperiod beta stability condition loop state"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "On programs with dated interim cost/schedule re-baselines within a phase, reconstruct the accumulation trajectory and test whether latency predicts the RATE of cost accrual at the moment it occurs versus the END-of-phase stock, demonstrating the phase-end beta is not a mechanical integration artifact (long phases score higher cost growth merely because the bathtub had more time to fill).", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["within-phase accrual rate versus end-of-phase stock latency regression", "integration artifact elapsed time bathtub fill cost growth", "dated interim re-baseline accumulation trajectory rate decomposition"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Aggregate to the authorizing-office-by-year level, regress total office latency on the contemporaneous count of programs in the queue to test queue-congestion dynamics, then show the summed program-level betas reproduce the observed agency-level cadence series rather than committing a fallacy of composition.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "forrester", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["authorizing office by-year queue congestion latency program count", "fallacy of composition actor-level aggregate cadence reproduce", "congestion externality coordination burden super-linear scaling"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Hand-code a stratified sample of authorization intervals into the three Allison process types (Model I rational pause, Model II organizational-routine queue clearing, Model III bureaucratic side-payment) and show the headline latency coefficient survives when re-estimated with process-type interaction terms.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Allison Model I II III process type hand-code authorization interval", "rational actor organizational process bureaucratic politics latency decomposition", "process-type interaction term coefficient survival NASA"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Document the seat each leading instrument operates from (workload = Model II organizational congestion; appropriations clock = Model III OMB/committee bargaining) and provide an overidentification/placebo test (e.g., no-year-funded programs insulated from the appropriations cycle) distinguishing a true instrument from a channel that is part of the mechanism.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["instrument seat Model II congestion Model III appropriations bargaining", "overidentification placebo no-year-funded program insulated appropriations", "exclusion restriction channel versus exogenous nudge falsification"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Construct an independent documentary proxy for bureaucratic-bargaining intensity per program-phase (distinct reprogramming requests, count of competing center stakeholders, congressional-mark reversals) and show the latency coefficient is robust to it, ruling out the Model III common-cause where long latency and high cost growth are co-produced resultants of one coalition fight.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["bureaucratic bargaining intensity proxy reprogramming competing center stakeholders", "congressional mark reversal coalition fight common cause confound", "latency cost growth co-produced resultant robustness Model III"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Partition each authorization interval by which seat owns the pending decision (Mission Directorate HQ, field-center program office, OMB passback, appropriations subcommittee) and report whether the latency-to-cost/schedule association holds WITHIN a seat or is only a between-seat composition effect.", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["seat-partitioned authorization interval within-seat between-seat beta", "Mission Directorate field center OMB passback appropriations subcommittee", "composition effect latency cost schedule association decomposition"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Build a measure of each program's portfolio standing (directorate champion, congressional-district interest, flagship designation) and test whether authorizing-office workload predicts cost/schedule DIFFERENTLY for portfolio winners versus losers; if the path runs only through deprioritized losers, the workload exclusion restriction fails.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["program portfolio standing champion district flagship queue priority", "workload winners losers interaction exclusion restriction deprioritized", "bureaucratic competence procurement outcomes standing queue order"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Isolate documented discrete RE-SEATING events (clearance layer eliminated, authority delegated downward, review office stood up/disbanded) and show in an event study that the SAME programs' latency and cost/schedule outcomes move together after re-seating; if they do not, latency is a passive marker of regime, not a lever.", "facet": "governance", "raised_by": "allison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["re-seating event study clearance eliminated authority delegated review office", "latency cost schedule co-movement same program seat change", "natural experiment causal lever versus passive regime marker"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Reconstruct, from the contemporaneous documentary trail, the date substantive commitment crystallized versus the date the recorded authorization fired, and show the divergence distribution (in months) across a stratified sample of NASA program-phases, before the recorded authorization can be treated as the decision.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["emergent strategy commitment crystallization versus authorization date divergence", "deliberate emergent realized strategy ratification month gap", "documentary trail stratified program-phase construct validation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Using process-rich cases (oral histories, NASA institutional histories, Apollo management-control record), show that documentary latency correlates with an independent, process-derived measure of how long substantive deliberation actually took, so the variable indexes decision speed rather than records-keeping density.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["managerial work fragmented verbally mediated deliberation duration process-derived", "oral history Apollo management control deliberation time correlation latency", "convergent validity decision speed records-keeping density"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce, per era, an estimate of what fraction of substantive decision time the documentary trigger-to-authorization interval captures, and show that this capture fraction is stable enough across eras that a within-era latency coefficient compares like with like.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["per-era capture fraction substantive decision time documentary interval", "era-dependent review formalization latency meaning 1965 versus 2020", "within-era coefficient like-with-like stability capture"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Stratify the panel by dominant coordinating configuration per program-phase (routine production/operations versus novel first-of-kind development) and show whether the latency-cost slope is heterogeneous, or whether the pooled beta averages a productive (machine-bureaucratic conformance) and a destructive (adhocratic mutual-adjustment) coefficient into a meaningless mean.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Structure in Fives configuration machine bureaucracy adhocracy mutual adjustment", "configuration-stratified latency slope routine versus novel first-of-kind", "pooled coefficient opposite-sign averaging conformance mutual adjustment"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "On a hand-coded sample with oral histories or contemporaneous correspondence, demonstrate the documentary trigger/authorization timestamps are not the LATE ratifying bookends of a process that substantively opened and closed earlier, and that this ratification lag is uncorrelated with phase difficulty rather than a measure of how much administrative ceremony a hard phase generates.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["ratification bookend trigger authorization timestamp late artifact oral history", "ratification lag correlated phase difficulty administrative ceremony", "compliance versus learning standardized review machinery NASA"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "On documented latency-compressing reorganizations, show post-regime cost-and-schedule improvement that EXCEEDS the mechanical removal of the compressed waiting time, the only test ruling out the latency remedy being a downstream symptom of machine-bureaucratic configuration mismatch rather than the cause; the era fixed effects currently absorb exactly this discriminating regime variation.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "mintzberg", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["post-reorganization improvement exceeds mechanical latency removal symptom cause", "configuration mismatch machine bureaucracy novel work co-product", "era fixed effects absorb regime variation cause symptom discrimination"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Specify the era partition granularity and demonstrate from the NASA appropriations record whether within-era residual variation in the appropriations-calendar instrument is statistically independent of the funding-instability index; if they co-move within era, the exclusion restriction fails through the fiscal-regime back-door and no first-stage F can save it.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["fiscal-political regime back-door instrument funding-instability index independence", "within-era residual appropriations-calendar continuing resolution co-movement", "exclusion restriction d-separation era granularity first-stage F"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Show, from the milestone taxonomy in the NASA program records, the exact set-theoretic decomposition of a phase's elapsed time into authorization intervals versus engineering-execution intervals, and prove the two are disjoint; if any authorization month is also in the schedule-slip numerator, the schedule-slip result is mechanically tautological and must be dropped.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["set-theoretic decomposition phase elapsed time authorization engineering disjoint", "schedule slip numerator latency component identity tautology", "NASA NTRS milestone interval taxonomy KDP confirmation review SRB"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "From GAO/NTRS records, exhibit for a sample of program-phases the dated sequence showing the latency-clock-start event precedes the first documented risk-elevation, review-board finding, or requirements-change request in that phase; if the risk signal systematically predates the latency-start event, the early-measurement defense collapses and the arrow runs difficulty -> latency.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["dated event sequence latency trigger precedes risk elevation requirements change", "anticipated difficulty phase entry immature TRL contested baseline confounder", "reverse causation temporal precedence early measurement defense GAO NTRS"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Draw the explicitly mediated DAG (latency -> mediator [standing-cost accrual / requirements churn / workforce idle] -> cost, with an unobserved program-difficulty confounder), state whether the latency-to-cost effect is front-door identifiable through the mediator without the contested IV, and name which line items in the three named datasets would populate the mediator node at program-phase resolution.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["front-door criterion mediator standing-cost requirements churn workforce idle", "mediated DAG program-difficulty confounder arrows mediator outcome", "mediator node measurement NASA budget records program-phase resolution"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "State the error structure of the two-resolution latency scalar on the DAG: is the coarse-era measurement error classical (independent of true latency, attenuating beta) or non-classical and correlated with the era node and the outcome (sparse-documentation eras also being looser-baseline, larger-overrun eras)? Show, on the documented overlap window, the joint distribution of (coarse latency, fine latency, outcome).", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["non-classical differential measurement error era documentary density collider", "errors-in-variables coarse fine latency joint distribution outcome overlap", "era fixed effect collider-adjacent downstream mismeasured latency outcome"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Pre-register and report the conditional-independence (overidentification) test of the exclusion restriction on the assembled panel (instrument independent of outcome residual given latency and controls), and commit that a non-vanishing partial correlation FALSIFIES the exclusion restriction and the IV, not merely flags a robustness footnote.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "pearl", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["conditional independence overidentification test exclusion restriction vanishing partial correlation", "DAG testable implication d-separation falsification pre-register", "two instruments one endogenous regressor overidentified instrument outcome residual"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Fit the tail of the cost-growth and schedule-slip distributions on the assembled panel and estimate the tail exponent alpha (Hill estimator on upper order statistics plus max-to-sum ratio convergence plot); if alpha <= 2 variance is undefined, clustered SEs estimate a non-existent moment, and beta does not converge to a stable population mean, so report what the coefficient is an estimate OF.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["tail exponent alpha Hill estimator cost overrun fat tail infinite variance", "max-to-sum ratio convergence megaproject Extremistan cost growth", "clustered standard error non-existent moment mean non-convergent"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Run a jackknife-by-extreme-deletion on the headline latency coefficient (delete the single most extreme cost-growth program, then top two, then top five) and plot beta and its interval versus number of tail programs excluded; pre-register an instability threshold (sign flip, loss of significance, or movement exceeding the coefficient's own SE) at which the mean frame is conceded to have failed.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["jackknife leave-extreme-out latency coefficient tail program deletion", "Constellation top-k catastrophic program influence sign flip significance", "pre-register falsification threshold mean frame failed tail estimand"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Re-pose the hypothesis on the tail: estimate whether latency shifts the tail exponent or the conditional probability of extreme overrun (quantile regression at the 90th/95th percentile, or a tail-index regression), not the conditional mean, and test whether latency's tail effect matches its mean effect in sign and significance; a null mean effect with a positive tail effect is a rejection of H0, not a confirmation.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["quantile regression 90th 95th percentile cost growth latency tail effect", "tail-index regression conditional probability extreme overrun ruin", "absorbing barrier Kessler ruin decision rule tail estimand re-anchor"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Enumerate the population of NASA programs (1958-2026) that never reached authorization or were terminated during a long latency interval (cancelled, zeroed, pre-authorization limbo) from GAO new-start/cancellation records, NTRS, and budget justifications, and report what fraction of candidate phase-observations is missing from the survivor panel for that reason.", "facet": "measurement", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["NASA program cancellation termination pre-authorization limbo graveyard census", "GAO new-start cancellation record NTRS budget justification 1958-2026", "survivor panel missing fraction censored program-phase denominator"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Produce a Heckman-style selection model or Manski-style bounds argument from the survivor panel plus the enumerated cancellation set that quantifies the sign and magnitude of survivorship bias on the latency coefficient, showing whether survivor-only beta is an upper or lower bound and how wide the bound is once dead programs re-enter.", "facet": "identification", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["Heckman selection model Manski bounds survivorship bias latency coefficient", "survivor-only beta upper lower bound dead programs re-enter", "collider selection survival downstream latency censored cancellation"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Demonstrate the policy claim 'compress latency to reduce overrun' is estimable when the worst latency outcome (cancellation/ruin) is structurally excluded from every dependent variable, or restate the contribution as a within-survivor association that is silent on, and possibly opposite to, latency's effect on program-killing ruin (e.g., via a cancellation-hazard outcome).", "facet": "rival", "raised_by": "taleb", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["cancellation hazard ruin-inclusive outcome within-survivor scope restriction", "absorbing barrier program death dependent variable baseline censored", "policy claim compress latency overrun ruin opposite effect"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Add an optimist/synthesist OR normative-strategic seat (none was on the panel) that asks whether latency carries an unpriced option value or hedging benefit (deliberate delay buying information, avoiding premature commitment to an immature design), so the dissertation does not implicitly assume all latency is pure waste; show the optimal-latency interior solution rather than a monotone compress-it-to-zero policy.", "facet": "mechanism", "raised_by": "moderator", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["option value of delay real options deliberate latency information acquisition", "optimal latency interior solution premature commitment immature design", "value of waiting hedging benefit acquisition decision deferral"], "status": "open"}
{"q": "Re-estimate the latency-cost association under at least two independent deflators (NASA New Start Inflation Index versus an economy-wide GDP price deflator) and report how much beta moves; add the New Start Inflation Index source document to the corpus as a discrete, citable, versioned source first. The GDP deflator alternative is recognised in the space-economy forecasting literature but no resolvable external citation for the specific OCEA report was available at time of interrogation; locating and verifying an external DOI or URL for the OCEA source (Bryce/SIA Forecasting the Space Economy, source key SD08) is a prerequisite before this claim can be grounded.", "facet": "empirics", "raised_by": "maddison", "priority": "high", "query_terms": ["NASA New Start Inflation Index source document deflator versioned citable", "OCEA Bryce SIA Forecasting Space Economy GDP price deflator external DOI", "dual deflator sensitivity cost overrun beta stability space program"], "status": "partial"}