vault backup: 2026-02-18 17:27:27

2026-01-11.md

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ then there are few who in the world who couldn't,
 given infinite time for a single bid.
 The _true_ value of an estimator, then,
 is in their ability to model project cost _efficiently_, that is,
-to achieve acceptable accuracy and precision as quickly as possible,---
+to achieve _acceptable_ accuracy and precision as quickly as possible,---
 much as the engineer's is in building a bridge that _meets_ the requirements
 as cheaply as possible.
 
@@ -53,9 +53,10 @@ it is not cost-effective[^1] to allow it to take four.[^2]
 
 [^1]: "Cost" referring both to estimator salaries and the opportunity cost of declined bids.
 
-[^2]: Supposing a contractor maintained a modern portfolio theory styled record
-    of estimates including pending bids, and projects ongoing and completed,
-    with confidence estimates uncorrupted by [[estimating-culture#Incentives|perverse incentives]],
+[^2]: Supposing a contractor maintained a modern portfolio theory styled record of estimates
+    including pending bids, and projects ongoing and completed
+    (each with confidence estimates),
+    uncorrupted by [[estimating-culture#Incentives|perverse incentives]],
     they may have reasonable basis to set sliding standards for estimate precision
     to be specifically determined at consideration of the opportunity for bid
     according to current climate (i.e. their transient risk appetite).
@@ -63,6 +64,7 @@ it is not cost-effective[^1] to allow it to take four.[^2]
     No contractor is doing that, so they lack a competent measure of risk tolerance
     besides continuing to tolerate what they have historically.
 
-Objectionable as it is,
-it is to be expected that estimators will use all time allowed them
-when the standards for _acceptability_ are inadequately defined.
+> [!important]
+> Objectionable as it is,
+> it is to be expected that estimators will use all time allowed them
+> when the standards for _acceptability_ are inadequately defined.