Browse by subject:
Applied and bridge studies study record
Decision Accounting & recordsThe Evidence That Decision Accounting Works: A Falsifiable Answer to the Investigative Objection
STATUS · Manuscript in progressSSRN · Not yet posted
MECHANISM
Identify the incentive structure and the condition that would falsify the claim.
RULE CHANGE
Read the intervention only after the paper shows how the current payoff space fails to support system welfare.
READER USE
Use the summary to see where private gain creates system exposure, then check the study record.
Contribution — what this adds to the conversation
The paper gives them. I present four documented cases—Wells Fargo (2002–2016), Purdue Pharma (1996–2019), Volkswagen (2006–2015), and the UK Post Office Horizon scandal (1999–2015)—where the absence of a Decision-Accounting record directly enabled catastrophic governance failures, and two cases—Singapore's Monetary Authority enforcement actions (2018–2023) and the UK Senior Managers and Certification Regime (2016–2024)—where the presence of such records demonstrably prevented harms or caught bad decisions.
WHAT'S NEW · The absence of Decision-Accounting records enabled catastrophic governance failures at Wells Fargo, Purdue Pharma, Volkswagen, and the UK Post Office. The presence of Decision-Accounting records prevented harm or caught bad decisions in Singapore's MAS enforcement actions and the UK SM&CR. A falsification condition is specified: a fully implemented DA system that fails to prevent a comparable catastrophe would falsify the framework. The burden of proof shifts to skeptics to produce a counterexample.
The paper answers the investigative objection to Decision Accounting by presenting six documented cases: four where the absence of a Decision-Accounting record enabled catastrophic governance failures (Wells Fargo, Purdue Pharma, Volkswagen, UK Post Office Horizon), and two where its presence prevented harm or caught bad decisions (Singapore MAS, UK SM&CR). It formalizes a falsification condition and shifts the burden of proof to skeptics.