Research examples, outreach and technical exchanges. We will not call an inquiry a contract or an email reply an endorsement.
Our July 2024 decision replay showed why a revised indicator can make a later backtest look cleaner than the evidence available at the time.
We compared the original information available to a decision-maker with later-revised data and documented the mismatch. Our work was independently developed using public data.
Read the actual example ↗Not a client result; no investment-performance claim.
These items show the questions we've raised and what happened next—not work contracts.
We proposed checking whether three smaller businesses could meet the financial, governance and disclosure standards for a regulated raise. A regulatory contact explained that listing rules and securities laws were being revised, so companies were not available for the test.
We proposed examining coordination and execution risks across three or four priority programs ahead of potential El Niño-related disruption.
We exchanged views with an investment professional about faster credit and policy signals and slower financial-conditions indicators. That led to further independent work on historical data revisions.
We asked how projected closing odds compare with final pool prices and where those differences matter across a multi-race sequence. A racing representative explained the intended informational use of the projections.
We developed a question for club scouting: which parts of a player's performance will carry into a different system? The idea was sent to FC Tokyo.
We are examining how public assets, reserves and long-term funding options could be assessed before a municipality considers a new approach. Separate local civic research has prompted correspondence with Newmarket officials.
Send us the decision and what worries you. We'll tell you if a focused review makes sense.
