Skip to content
Browse by subject:
Measurement and implementation practice

Apply system-welfare measurement to a real decision.

The Center for Decision Accounting conducts new SAPM studies, reviews independent calculations, and helps organizations place system-welfare evidence inside the decisions that create or reduce the harm.
Services

Seven ways to engage the Center.

Preliminary decision screen

A rapid, source-linked assessment of whether an existing domain estimate fits the proposed decision and which evidence gaps matter most.
  • Boundary-match report
  • Material harm channels
  • Evidence gaps
  • Recommended study route

Decision-grade calibration

A decision-specific estimate with matched activity and revenue boundaries, uncertainty analysis, overlap review, and a complete evidence card.
  • Channel ledger
  • Monte Carlo model
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Reviewable final report

New-domain SAPM study

An original measurement program for an activity outside the current registry, including evidence acquisition, model construction, and review gates.
  • Research protocol
  • Evidence receipts
  • Versioned estimate
  • Registry-ready record

Independent calculation review

A reconstruction of an internal or third-party estimate from its evidence, assumptions, code, and outputs, with disagreements recorded explicitly.
  • Source verification
  • Boundary and denominator review
  • Independent rerun
  • Signed review statement

Software and GDSS integration

Implementation of the SAPM evidence object and Decision Accounting fields inside negotiation, strategy, risk, governance, or agent software.
  • Data contract
  • Workflow design
  • Review controls
  • Acceptance tests

Regulatory and public decision analysis

A documented welfare calculation prepared for a board, regulator, policymaker, auditor, insurer, or other consequential reader.
  • Audience-specific report
  • Source appendix
  • Alternative assumptions
  • Reconsideration conditions

Litigation research and consulting

Independent economic analysis for counsel and multidisciplinary expert teams, beginning with consulting work and case-specific review before any testifying role.
  • Case assessment
  • Litigation-grade SAPM study
  • Reproducible model and source record
  • Expert-team support
Research standards

Applied work uses the same method as the public research.

An organization may define the question, supply data, and require lawful confidentiality. The Center remains responsible for the research method, analysis, conclusions, statements of uncertainty, and correction of errors.

Public research

The method, paper replication materials, published-domain evidence needed to evaluate claims, corrections, and falsification conditions remain publicly inspectable.

Applied research

Decision-specific and confidential work uses explicit sources, boundary choices, assumptions, uncertainty, and review records.

Academic publication

The author controls academic methods, conclusions, corrections, and submission. Direct support and relevant relationships are disclosed when required by the receiving journal.
Engagement path

From question to reviewable result.

A short scoping discussion determines the decision, audience, available evidence, time horizon, and appropriate evidence status. The resulting proposal states the outputs, review gates, timetable, compensation, ownership, methodological control, confidentiality, and publication terms before work begins.
The Center’s role is to make the system-welfare estimate reconstructable, challengeable, and usable by the people responsible for the decision.