Browse by subject:
FOR DEANS · PROVOSTS · FACULTY SEARCHES · FUNDERS

The strongest fair case for institutional engagement—and the questions that remain.

The program offers an unusually large, inspectable body of research engineering, computational work, formal development, standards design, and curriculum. Its present scholarly maturity is uneven. An institution can evaluate the artifacts directly and scope an engagement around verifiable work.
Canonical public record: https://decisionaccounting.org/institutional-diligence/
Artifact-rich research engineering

Strongest case for an invitation

Postnieks can turn a governance question into a computational environment, saved result corpus, working paper, open specification, and teachable sequence. The Calvano package and 18-chapter Academy make a seminar, visiting workshop, reproducibility sprint, or scoped collaboration directly inspectable.
Independent evidence is limited

Strongest case against an appointment

Most current work is self-authored and self-published. The public record lists no independent replication of the flagship experiment, no accepted journal publication for the current program, zero verified theorems, and no external learning-outcome evidence for the Academy. Those facts support a staged evaluation before a senior scholarly appointment.
Course-ready public materials

What he could teach

Possible offerings include Decision Accounting and institutional memory; computational economics of multi-agent markets; reproducible simulation and null-result reporting; welfare boundaries in firm and platform decisions; and formal-claim strengthening. Suitable audiences include advanced undergraduates, graduate students, executives, policy students, and interdisciplinary AI-governance groups.
Author-developed · unaccredited

Course evidence boundary

The public curriculum has source-grounded practice, feedback, progress persistence, objections, proofs, cases, and reforms. It has not been accredited, independently evaluated, or supported by public enrollment, completion, or learning-gain data.
INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

Questions a dean or funder should investigate.

  • Verify degrees, employment history, investment-firm assets, performance, and audit claims from primary records.
  • Separate the 1988 externally published article from the current independent working-paper program.
  • Commission an independent reproduction of the Calvano/DRCS package and a formal review of selected theorem claims.
  • Review the scale of self-citation, literature coverage, source quality, and whether proposed concepts duplicate established work under new labels.
  • Treat eponymous or priority labels as author-proposed working names unless independent scholarship establishes recognition.
  • Keep SAPM numerical results outside institutional claims while the public admission gate remains closed.
  • Assess teaching quality through a seminar or short course with pre-specified evaluation measures.
  • Define publication, data, code, intellectual-property, research-integrity, and conflict-of-interest terms before affiliation.
STAGED ENGAGEMENT

A proportionate path from seminar to research partnership.

  1. Host a research seminar centered on the Calvano result, its nulls, and its replication package.
  2. Run an independent reproduction and adversarial methods workshop.
  3. Pilot one Academy module with a defined audience and learning assessment.
  4. Select one theorem lineage for formal faculty review and exact-hash revision.
  5. Use the resulting evidence to decide on a visiting role, fellowship, center affiliation, course, or longer research appointment.