vault backup: 2026-04-02 22:27:54

conest-senior-review.md

@@ -2,7 +2,12 @@
 id:
 aliases: []
 title: ConEst Senior Review
-tags: []
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - occupational
+  - status/not-started
+  - type/process
 dg-publish: true
 ---
 # ConEst Senior Review

estimator-calibration.md

@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ As of when?
 > How many gallons are in a bushel (they are both measures of volume)?
 
 I wonder if Hubbard had the same thought I did
-while reading [[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition|MacGregor et al. (1994)]].
+while reading [[macgregor_1994_judgmental-decomposition|MacGregor et al. (1994)]].
 
 > How many sovereign rulers has England had in the last thousand years?
 

lucky-fools.md

@@ -16,8 +16,14 @@ especially if they sincerely believe
 that their success _was_ due to their competence.
 
 %%
-Books concerned with lucky fools:
+somewhat related:
-[[taleb_2001_fooled-by-randomness]]
+* [hot hand fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand)
-[[kahneman_2011_thinking]]
+* [gambler's fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)
-[[hubbard_2020_failure]]
+%%
+
+%%
+Books concerned with lucky fools:
+* [[taleb_2001_fooled-by-randomness]]
+* [[kahneman_2011_thinking]]
+* [[hubbard_2020_failure]]
 %%

megan-blizard.md

@@ -2,7 +2,12 @@
 id:
 aliases: []
 title: Megan Blizard
-tags: []
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - occupational
+  - status/not-started
+  - type/person
 dg-publish: false
 ---
 # Megan Blizard

timestamped/2026-01-25_21-02-00.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ In [[hubbard_2020_failure#Break It Down, Then Do the Math]]
 Hubbard introduces **decomposition** as a method for reducing error in estimates,
 Providing Fermi's "piano tuners in Chicago" problem as an example,
 without acknowledging that _Fermi_ supplied the decomposition.
-Hubbard also references [[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
+Hubbard also references [[macgregor_1994_judgmental-decomposition]]
 which is a similar case.
 Neither of these examples suggest that decomposition is a magic bullet,
 _or even that a layman's decomposition wouldn't be worse than nothing._

timestamped/2026-01-25_22-59-00.md

@@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ dg-publish: true
 ---
 # 2026-01-25 22:59:??
 
-[[macgregor_1994_judgemental-decomposition]]
+## _Judgmental Decomposition_
+
+[[macgregor_1994_judgmental-decomposition]]
 
 I really hate this study.
 

timestamped/2026-04-02_19-10-14.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+id: 2026-04-02T19:10:14-04:00
+aliases: []
+title: 2026-04-02 19:10:14
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - status/draft
+  - type/periodic/timestamped
+dg-publish: true
+date-created: 2026-04-02T19:10:14-04:00
+daily: "[[2026-04-02]]"
+weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
+monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
+quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
+yearly: "[[2026]]"
+---
+# 2026-04-02 19:10:14
+
+From a high-level, business proposition perspective
+[[construction-estimating]] is identical in function to stock trading,
+both typified by expert judgement under uncertainty
+...
+One significant difference despite their similarity
+is that only in stock trading is it well understood
+that individual loss is not only inevitable,
+_it is how the strategy works._
+If you're not losing sometimes
+you're not assuming enough risk
+and you're missing out on returns.
+
+Similar sentiments expressed in the context of construction contracting
+are not popular, and are frequently judged irresponsible.
+
+I believe the tendency to set standards for estimates
+beyond the optimal level of detail
+stems from a [cognitive bias of association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Association)
+or [relevance fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Relevance_fallacies)
+which leads otherwise rational estimators
+to the erroneous belief that because construction is physically tangible,
+risk control is more effective than in markets.
+This may be related to [[2026-04-02_20-41-59#Decomposition Fallacy]].

timestamped/2026-04-02_20-41-59.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+id: 2026-04-02T20:41:59-04:00
+aliases: []
+title: 2026-04-02 20:41:59
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - status/draft
+  - type/periodic/timestamped
+dg-publish: true
+date-created: 2026-04-02T20:41:59-04:00
+daily: "[[2026-04-02]]"
+weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
+monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
+quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
+yearly: "[[2026]]"
+---
+# 2026-04-02 20:41:59
+
+## Decomposition Fallacy
+
+I have expressed in other notes[^1] my frustration
+with how estimate decomposition is most frequently explained:
+as an intuitive process which can not be performed incorrectly
+and by definition creates a more accurate estimate.
+
+[^1]: * [[2026-01-25_21-02-00]]
+    * [[2026-01-25_22-59-00]]
+
+The argument that an estimate based on the aggregation of intermediate estimates
+is necessarily more reliable than one made in one go
+is intuitive, but a [non sequitur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy).
+
+Frequently, decomposition is explicitly _unhelpful_
+due to its neglect of the [portfolio effect](https://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/portfolio+effect).
+If an estimator can give a high confidence estimate
+of total dollars spent on rental equipment over the life of a project,
+it does not follow that they could give one for
+dollars spent on scissor lifts alone with greater or even equal confidence.[^2]
+
+[^2]: I chose this example specifically
+    because it has been an issue at both EC's I've estimated for.
+    We set a target based on some well founded model
+    (\$0.25 per direct labor hour or 1% of total sell price),
+    then 3--4 decently paid estimators spend up to an hour
+    discussing how to make that target
+    from quantities and durations of individual pieces of equipment.
+    Ultimately none are totally satisfied with it, nor should they be,
+    since the actual quantities, durations, and equipment types will be quite different,
+    and the entire exercise was pointless.
+
+My criticism is not entirely fair, however.
+Fermi and MacGregor's estimation problems have correct answers
+and are thus a different class entirely
+from those I'm most familiar with.
+I choose to criticize decomposition generally despite this
+because the distinction is rarely acknowledged by its advocates
+so "decomposition = good" pervades the estimating zeitgeist completely
+and I get baffled, horrified, or patronizing looks when I suggest
+that complete quantity takeoff may not be more accurate
+than a parametric budget that could be completed in a day.