I really do appreciate the detailed info, Darin. Thanks for taking the time to pull that together - it makes for an interesting case study...

The problem appears to be systemic, which is no surprise. The ITAC's role is not clearly defined (yet), it is unclear what role (if any) the stock weight plays in determining IT-spec race weight, nobody is sure what to do while the PAC question remains unresolved, there is no clear procedural distinction between an "adjustment" and a "correction, it is unclear what data is truly required for classification and specification, and the entire process still leans heavily on perceptions of competitive potential.

Until such time as these are addressed, you ITAC guys are stuck in uneviable position of having to make recommendations - that may or may not be considered - with insufficient information. Were I on the ITAC, I'd be pretty worried about this no-win position: It IS a PITA chore and lots of folks are willing to whine about your work but the fact that you potentially accept a lot of blame without commensurate control would seem to be the bigger threat.

This mistatement of who actually had material input on the 318 decision may indeed be another case of reporting error but I'd watch to see if a pattern emerges.

Thanks again, Darin.

K