vault backup: 2026-05-04 17:15:02

timestamped/2026-01-11_11-00-00.md

@@ -7,11 +7,16 @@ daily: "[[2026-01-11]]"
 ---
 # 2026-01-11 11:00:??
 
+%%
+Comment on a flawed understanding of [[construction-estimating]],
+common even among estimators.
+%%
+
 ![[my-favorite-quotes#"It Takes an Engineer to Build a Bridge that Barely Stands"]]
 
 The value that estimators provide for a contractor
-is in modeling project cost.
-If the goal were simply to present a number the cost will not exceed,
+is in _modeling project cost_.
+If the goal were simply to present a number that the cost will not exceed,
 than anyone could be an estimator.
 If the goal were only to present a reasonably accurate figure,
 with no other constraints,
@@ -46,11 +51,13 @@ it is not cost-effective[^1] to allow it to take four.[^2]
     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).
+
     I believe my use of the absolute is still fair:
-    No contractor is doing that, so they lack a competent measure of risk tolerance
-    besides continuing to tolerate what they have historically.
+    No contractor is doing that,
+    so they lack a competent measure of risk tolerance
+    besides continuing to tolerate what they have tolerated historically.
 
 > [!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.
+> when the standards for **acceptability** are inadequately defined.