Resources & Results
Connect financial disclosures, public-sector strategy data, and performance evidence to assess how resource allocation contributes to broad and sustainable prosperity.
Other Information
A proposed performance plan developed by ChatGPT in dialogue with Owen Ambur on November 10, 2026. This is an independently proposed model performance plan linking opportunities associated with the SEC's machine-understandable financial data discussions and GSA's U.S. Strategy Data initiative. It is not an adopted SEC, GSA, OMB, or interagency plan. All goals, objectives, stakeholder roles, indicators, and target conditions are proposed for review; no organization has accepted responsibility or committed resources. No findings, consensus, or commitments are attributed to the November 9 SEC roundtable beyond the published remarks.
Rationale: Financial data and strategy data are complementary parts of a resource-to-results model. The distinction between machine-readable and machine-understandable information concerns explicit meaning, context, provenance, and relationships, rather than file format alone. Link inputs, processing, outputs, and outcomes to support evaluation of public and private resource allocation. Address the imbalance discussed in this dialogue between budget allocation and management of results, without treating that assessment as a finding of the SEC or GSA.
Purpose: Support the greatest good for the greatest number on a sustainable basis. Examine aggregate prosperity, the breadth of benefits, opportunity costs, incentives, and effects across generations. Do not prescribe an expansion or contraction of government, assume transfers create net economic value, or treat spending, dataset downloads, or publication as evidence of improved welfare. Distinguish earned income, voluntary exchanges and contributions, public transfers, taxes, borrowing, and other resource flows where relevant to the analysis.
Scope: Begin with public information and a bounded demonstration linking a selected public objective to relevant resource flows and private-sector disclosures where a defensible connection exists. A financial disclosure may inform analysis without identifying a particular public program. Aggregation boundaries and classification differences must be documented. Do not sum transfer payments and the subsequent uses of the same funds as separate net benefits.
Measurement: No empirical baseline, actual result, numerical performance threshold, implementation date, or funding commitment has been invented. TargetResult descriptions specify proposed success conditions or directions; all target dates remain unset pending adoption and pilot design. Establish numerical targets only after baseline measurement and agreement on scope and costs. Macroeconomic outcomes are contextual indicators, not outcomes attributable to this data initiative without suitable evaluation. All quantitative indicators require defined denominators, periods, sources, revision policies, and uncertainty.
Sources: SEC Joshua White remarks: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/white-remarks-super-intelligence-110926 ; SEC Paul Atkins closing remarks: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-super-intelligence-110926 ; SEC event: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/machine-understandable-data-age-super-intelligence-si ; Ivan Metzger's fellowship announcement: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ivanmetzger_applications-are-open-for-the-us-strategy-activity-7491110248330547201-M-nc ; independently inferred fellowship plan: https://stratml.us/docs/USSDF.xml . The latter contains editorial proposals and is not an official GSA plan.
Schema: Validated against the StratML Part 2 v2.2.10 XSD embedded in https://stratml.us/references/StratML-Prompting-Guide.html .
Submitter's Note: I have reviewed this plan in the form at https://stratml.us/forms/Claude/Part2.html
🏢No One in Particular NOIP A proposed voluntary collaboration open to interested public, private, academic, nonprofit, and individual participants; no sponsoring entity or governing body has been established.
Stakeholders:
🏢 🏢 🏢 🏢 👥 👥 👥 👥 Show Hide 1 member | Source & SubmitterSource:https://stratml.us/docs/R&R.xml Period: to Published: |
Vision
Broadly shared, sustainable prosperity supported by informed resource allocation.
Mission
To connect financial, strategic, and performance information so people can assess how effectively public and private resources contribute to lasting improvements in well-being.
Values
Goal 1: Meaning 🔗
Make meaning explicit in interoperable financial, strategic, and performance information.
Objective 1.1: Definitions 🔗
Establish definitions that distinguish financial resources, strategic intentions, outputs, and outcomes.
Stakeholders:
🏢U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Financial data expertise : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on financial disclosure semantics, quality, usability, and existing public datasets within applicable authority. (Performer)
🏢U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy Strategy data interoperability : Proposed role: Explore connections between strategy data, financial resources, and performance evidence through the U.S. Strategy Data initiative. (Performer)
👥Standards Bodies and Data Architects Semantic interoperability : Proposed role: Map StratML and relevant financial and government data standards, preserving domain definitions and documenting gaps. (Performer)
Other Information
XML or JSON syntax alone does not establish shared meaning. Map concepts to relevant financial taxonomies and StratML structures without assuming that every concept has a one-to-one equivalent.
Performance Indicators
1.1.1: Semantic coverage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of in-scope concepts with reviewed definitions and mappings. |
Other Information
Numerator: in-scope concepts with approved definitions, source references, scope notes, and reviewed mappings. Denominator: all concepts in the versioned pilot concept inventory. Report unmatched and ambiguous concepts separately. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
1.1.2: Interpretation accuracy
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase correct interpretations of concepts and context on an independently reviewed benchmark. |
Other Information
Use a held-out, versioned set of questions with adjudicated answers; compare extraction-only and explicitly mapped representations using the same model, task, and sources. Report sample size, error classes, and uncertainty. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 1.2: Provenance 🔗
Preserve provenance and context for source statements and inferred relationships.
Stakeholders:
👥Participating Government Organizations Objectives and resource stewardship : Proposed role: Identify objectives, explain resource use and performance, and review proposed links; participation by governments at different levels remains voluntary within their authorities. (Performer)
👥Participating Companies and Financial Data Providers Disclosure interpretation : Proposed role: Explain existing public disclosures, relevant definitions, and comparability limits; review mappings without assuming endorsement or imposing new reporting requirements. (Performer)
👥Software Developers and AI Tool Providers Tools and validation : Proposed role: Build extraction, linking, validation, search, and analysis capabilities with traceable evidence and human review. (Performer)
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
Other Information
Retain publication versions, fiscal or calendar periods, currencies, price bases, geographic and organizational boundaries, and review status. Keep observed, declared, inferred, disputed, and unsupported relationships distinguishable.
Performance Indicators
1.2.1: Provenance coverage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of pilot records traceable to precise source evidence. |
Other Information
Numerator: published records with a resolvable source, version or retrieval date, location within the source, and inference/review status. Denominator: all published pilot records. Test source resolution and evidence correspondence separately. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
1.2.2: Unsupported assertions
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Decreasing | Reduce unsupported assertions in audited machine-assisted answers. |
Other Information
Numerator: sampled factual assertions not supported by cited evidence. Denominator: sampled factual assertions; distinguish missing evidence from false statements and report evaluator agreement. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 1.3: Interoperability 🔗
Enable interoperability among strategy, financial, and performance data services.
Stakeholders:
🏢U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy Strategy data interoperability : Proposed role: Explore connections between strategy data, financial resources, and performance evidence through the U.S. Strategy Data initiative. (Performer)
👥Standards Bodies and Data Architects Semantic interoperability : Proposed role: Map StratML and relevant financial and government data standards, preserving domain definitions and documenting gaps. (Performer)
👥Software Developers and AI Tool Providers Tools and validation : Proposed role: Build extraction, linking, validation, search, and analysis capabilities with traceable evidence and human review. (Performer)
Other Information
Use StratML as a strategic and performance representation alongside appropriate financial standards. Preserve source-specific detail through documented mappings rather than forcing financial statements into strategy elements. Historical foundation: On September 12, 2013, Frederick Chapus of the UBMatrix division of EDGAR Online, then an RR Donnelley company, rendered the StratML Part 1 schema as an XBRL taxonomy. The linked workbook contains StratML concepts and definitions arranged as a taxonomy data-point model. The presentation, titled AIIM Taxonomy Sample -2013-09-12, documents taxonomy generation, an instance test, and validation steps. This demonstrates prior technical exploration of a bridge between strategy and financial reporting standards. It does not establish a maintained current taxonomy, current Part 2 compatibility, SEC or GSA adoption, or a complete resource-to-outcome mapping. Evaluate reusable definitions, hierarchy, context, and test methods against current schemas, and publish any gaps. Workbook: https://stratml.us/references/StratMLPart1Elements-v02.xlsx ; presentation: https://stratml.us/references/RRD-AIIM-Taxonomy-Sample-20130912.pptx .
Performance Indicators
1.3.1: Interchange reliability
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase successful exchanges that preserve required meaning across independent implementations. |
Other Information
Test valid imports, exports, round trips, and retrieval by at least two independently implemented tools when available. Denominator: documented test cases; report schema validity separately from semantic fidelity. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
1.3.2: Taxonomy compatibility
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess the historical StratML-to-XBRL demonstration against current strategic, performance, and financial data requirements. |
Other Information
Publish a versioned mapping and test report covering reusable concepts, hierarchy and context preservation, instance validation, round-trip fidelity, and gaps for stakeholder roles, resource links, indicators, targets, actual results, and measurement periods. Retrieve any original generated taxonomy files if available; distinguish evidence in the workbook and slides from executable taxonomy artifacts. Treat the 2013 demonstration as historical evidence, not proof of current compatibility. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 1.4: AI/SI Assistance 🔗
Improve AI/SI assistance for interpreting and connecting financial, strategic, and performance evidence.
Stakeholders:
👥AI/SI Developers, Operators, and Reviewers Assisted analysis and accountable operation : Proposed role: Apply and evaluate AI tools for extraction, semantic mapping, relationship discovery, scenario analysis, explanation, and monitoring; retain identifiable human responsibility for adopted mappings, claims, and resource decisions. (Performer)
Other Information
Apply available AI tools across this plan: extract concepts and measures (1.1), retain citations and flag unsupported claims (1.2), propose semantic mappings (1.3), discover resource and cross-sector links (2.1-2.4), assist economic analysis and sensitivity testing (3.1-3.3), explain comparisons and support independent scrutiny (4.1-4.2), and monitor pilot quality and costs (5.1-5.2). SI means superintelligence as used in the SEC event title; capability beyond current tools is prospective and is not assumed to exist, be available, or be reliable. Reassess more capable systems with the same evidence standards when available. AI may propose hypotheses and counterfactual models, but fluency and correlation do not establish causation. Publish source citations, relevant configurations, model versions, test conditions, and uncertainty; distinguish source statements from generated inferences. Human reviewers accept or reject substantive links and decisions. Automate routine checks and alerts proportionately; do not delegate spending authority to an agent through this plan.
Performance Indicators
1.4.1: Verified task accuracy
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase verified accuracy on representative extraction, mapping, linkage, and explanation tasks. |
Other Information
Use held-out source materials and independently adjudicated answers. Compare AI-assisted and reference workflows on identical tasks and inputs; stratify by task and sector, including nonprofit records. Measure correct claims and links, unsupported claims, omissions, and uncertainty calibration; record human verification and correction effort. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
1.4.2: Verified task cost
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Currency | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Decreasing | Reduce total cost per correctly completed task while maintaining agreed accuracy and traceability. |
Other Information
Calculate USD cost per task meeting the predeclared quality threshold, including computing, licenses, staff review, rework, and failures. Compare with the reference workflow; report latency and scale separately. Faster unsupported answers do not count as successful completion. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
1.4.3: Monitoring coverage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase coverage of agreed source changes and quality failures by tested monitoring and review procedures. |
Other Information
Numerator: defined source-update or quality-failure cases detected and routed for review within agreed service periods. Denominator: all cases in a controlled test set. Report false alarms, missed changes, correction latency, and ongoing operating cost. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Goal 2: Connections 🔗
Connect resource inputs and processing to outputs and outcomes.
Objective 2.1: Resource Links 🔗
Link resource inputs to objectives and responsible organizations.
Stakeholders:
🏢Office of Management and Budget Budget and management integration : Proposed role: Explore links among budget resources, strategic objectives, and performance evidence; assess usefulness for resource allocation and management. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Department of the Treasury Public financial information : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on public financial data, accounting boundaries, transaction classifications, and reconciliation. (Performer)
Show Hide 1 member👥Participating Government Organizations Objectives and resource stewardship : Proposed role: Identify objectives, explain resource use and performance, and review proposed links; participation by governments at different levels remains voluntary within their authorities. (Performer)
🏢U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy Strategy data interoperability : Proposed role: Explore connections between strategy data, financial resources, and performance evidence through the U.S. Strategy Data initiative. (Performer)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Donors, Foundations, and Grantmakers Voluntary resource allocation : Proposed role: Use and contribute evidence to allocate voluntary contributions and grants, assess results and opportunity costs, and identify complementary efforts. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Distinguish authorization, appropriation, obligation, outlay, expense, revenue, tax expenditure, financing, and private investment. A link expresses a documented allocation or analytical relationship, not proof of causation. Allocate shared costs transparently and retain unallocated amounts.
Performance Indicators
2.1.1: Resource linkage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of selected resource amounts linked to reviewed objectives. |
Other Information
Numerator: selected resource amount assigned to reviewed objectives. Denominator: total selected resource amount on the same accounting and period basis. Avoid double counting shared amounts; disclose exclusions and unallocated amounts. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
2.1.2: Reconciliation difference
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Currency | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Decreasing | Reduce unexplained differences between linked resource totals and source totals. |
Other Information
Measure absolute unexplained difference in USD for each separately reconciled dataset and period. Disclose explained timing, consolidation, and accounting adjustments; do not net unlike categories or currencies. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 2.2: Value Chains 🔗
Connect processing, outputs, and outcomes through explicit value chains.
Stakeholders:
👥Participating Government Organizations Objectives and resource stewardship : Proposed role: Identify objectives, explain resource use and performance, and review proposed links; participation by governments at different levels remains voluntary within their authorities. (Performer)
👥Public and Private Resource Managers Allocation and management decisions : Proposed role: Use evidence to compare alternatives, manage resources, and document decisions and subsequent results. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Volunteers and Community Associations Community capacity : Proposed role: Contribute expertise, time, and local knowledge, and document contributions and results proportionately without imposing excessive reporting burdens. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Charitable Beneficiaries and Service Users Experience and outcomes : Proposed role: Help define meaningful outcomes and assess service quality, access, and sustained improvements; benefit from effective services while retaining personal agency. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Represent inputs, input processing, outputs, output processing, and outcomes where evidence supports each stage. Describe mechanisms, dependencies, alternative explanations, lags, and missing links; preserve contradictory evidence.
Performance Indicators
2.2.1: Value-chain coverage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of pilot objectives with reviewed resource-to-outcome chains. |
Other Information
Numerator: pilot objectives with documented inputs, relevant processes, outputs, outcome measures, sources, and assumptions. Denominator: all pilot objectives. An explicit evidence gap is useful disclosure but does not count as an evidenced link. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
2.2.2: Service unit cost
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Currency | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess comparable service unit costs alongside quality and access. |
Other Information
Calculate real USD per defined quality-adjusted service unit for a selected service; specify price year, cost boundaries, allocation rules, output quality, and population served. Lower cost alone is not success if outcomes or quality deteriorate. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 2.3: Sector Relationships 🔗
Identify relationships among public, commercial, and charitable resource uses and economic outcomes
Stakeholders:
🏢U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Financial data expertise : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on financial disclosure semantics, quality, usability, and existing public datasets within applicable authority. (Performer)
Show Hide 1 member👥Participating Companies and Financial Data Providers Disclosure interpretation : Proposed role: Explain existing public disclosures, relevant definitions, and comparability limits; review mappings without assuming endorsement or imposing new reporting requirements. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Department of the Treasury Public financial information : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on public financial data, accounting boundaries, transaction classifications, and reconciliation. (Performer)
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
👥Investors and Capital Providers Capital allocation : Proposed role: Use linked financial and performance information to assess opportunities, risks, and longer-term returns. (Beneficiary)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Donors, Foundations, and Grantmakers Voluntary resource allocation : Proposed role: Use and contribute evidence to allocate voluntary contributions and grants, assess results and opportunity costs, and identify complementary efforts. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Use existing public disclosures where sector, geography, time, and entity coverage permit defensible links. SEC registrants do not represent the entire economy. Treat supply-chain, procurement, subsidy, tax, borrowing, and investment links according to their actual mechanisms. Extend cross-sector analysis to public, commercial, nonprofit, charitable, and mixed arrangements. Distinguish sector relationships from financial flows and from evidence of additional net economic benefit.
Performance Indicators
2.3.1: Relationship validity
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of sampled cross-sector links independently confirmed against evidence. |
Other Information
Numerator: sampled proposed links confirmed with documented scope and mechanism. Denominator: sampled proposed links; report false links, rejected links, and unverifiable links separately. Do not equate thematic similarity with a financial flow. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 2.4: Charitable Resources 🔗
Connect charitable resources and nonprofit activities to mission outputs and sustainable outcomes.
Stakeholders:
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Donors, Foundations, and Grantmakers Voluntary resource allocation : Proposed role: Use and contribute evidence to allocate voluntary contributions and grants, assess results and opportunity costs, and identify complementary efforts. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Volunteers and Community Associations Community capacity : Proposed role: Contribute expertise, time, and local knowledge, and document contributions and results proportionately without imposing excessive reporting burdens. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Charitable Beneficiaries and Service Users Experience and outcomes : Proposed role: Help define meaningful outcomes and assess service quality, access, and sustained improvements; benefit from effective services while retaining personal agency. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Treat nonprofit and charitable organizations as resource allocators, mission performers, innovators, data contributors, and collaborators in their own right. Distinguish voluntary giving, investment income, earned revenue, government grants and contracts, and volunteer time. Use voluntarily supplied plans and performance reports alongside public financial filings, audited statements, and grant records where suitable. Different legal and disclosure regimes require explicit mappings; do not assume SEC disclosures cover charities. Compare public, commercial, charitable, and mixed approaches to shared outcomes on compatible terms. Record the charitable deduction as a tax-policy consideration where relevant, without treating it as a government cash grant. Track inter-organizational grants and contributions as flows; count final resource use and benefits once across consolidated analyses. Value volunteer time and donated goods transparently and report monetary and nonmonetary contributions separately. Fundraising totals and overhead ratios alone do not establish effectiveness. Protect confidential donor and beneficiary information and keep participation proportionate to organizational capacity.
Performance Indicators
2.4.1: Charitable resource linkage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of selected charitable resource amounts linked to reviewed mission objectives. |
Other Information
Numerator: selected monetary resources assigned to reviewed objectives. Denominator: total monetary resources within the declared nonprofit pilot boundary and accounting period. Report source types, restricted and unrestricted funds, shared-cost allocations, unallocated amounts, and inter-organizational transfers. Report volunteer hours separately from monetary totals. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
2.4.2: Outcome evidence coverage
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase coverage of charitable objectives by credible outcome evidence. |
Other Information
Numerator: selected charitable objectives with defined outcomes, source-backed measures, measurement periods, beneficiary input where feasible, and documented attribution limits. Denominator: all selected charitable objectives. An output tally or donor testimonial alone does not satisfy the outcome-evidence criterion. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
2.4.3: Reporting effort
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Hours | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess and limit incremental reporting effort relative to demonstrated analytical value. |
Other Information
Track median staff and volunteer hours per participating organization per reporting cycle, including preparation, corrections, and review. Stratify by organization size and reuse of existing records; agree proportionate ceilings after baseline assessment. Declining participation burden must not conceal reduced evidence quality. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numerical threshold, dates, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Goal 3: Impacts 🔗
Assess macroeconomic impacts on broad and sustainable prosperity.
Objective 3.1: Productivity & Investment 🔗
Assess productivity and investment effects of alternative resource allocations.
Stakeholders:
Show Hide 1 member👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
🏢Office of Management and Budget Budget and management integration : Proposed role: Explore links among budget resources, strategic objectives, and performance evidence; assess usefulness for resource allocation and management. (Performer)
👥Investors and Capital Providers Capital allocation : Proposed role: Use linked financial and performance information to assess opportunities, risks, and longer-term returns. (Beneficiary)
👥Workers, Entrepreneurs, and Consumers Economic opportunities : Proposed role: Benefit from improved productivity, employment opportunities, innovation, competition, and purchasing power where these results occur. (Beneficiary)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Use appropriate official aggregate and sector statistics alongside the pilot evidence. Examine private investment displacement or stimulation, labor participation, innovation, and productive capacity. These are contextual outcomes, not direct performance claims for the information service. Assess how charitable activity and voluntary coordination affect productive capacity, innovation, labor participation, and private investment. Preserve nonprofit sector boundaries and distinguish paid employment from volunteer contributions.
Performance Indicators
3.1.1: Labor productivity
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Assess whether real output per hour increases sustainably under the alternatives examined. |
Other Information
Annual percentage change in real value added per hour for the specified sector or economy; state coverage, source, revisions, and comparison period. Compare policy alternatives and counterfactual estimates where credible. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
3.1.2: Private investment
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess the direction and durability of effects on real private productive investment. |
Other Information
Annual percentage change in defined real private fixed investment; separate gross and net investment and asset classes. Estimate crowding-in or crowding-out only with an explicit method, uncertainty, and plausible counterfactual. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 3.2: Living Standards 🔗
Assess living standards and the breadth of sustained economic benefits.
Stakeholders:
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
👥Taxpayers, Voters, and Residents Public accountability : Proposed role: Examine who pays, who benefits, what results occur, and which tradeoffs follow; apply their own values to the evidence. (Beneficiary)
👥Workers, Entrepreneurs, and Consumers Economic opportunities : Proposed role: Benefit from improved productivity, employment opportunities, innovation, competition, and purchasing power where these results occur. (Beneficiary)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Charitable Beneficiaries and Service Users Experience and outcomes : Proposed role: Help define meaningful outcomes and assess service quality, access, and sustained improvements; benefit from effective services while retaining personal agency. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Consider aggregate and per-person results, median conditions, distribution, opportunities, and burdens. Report market income, transfers, taxes, and disposable income separately where relevant; avoid interpreting a transfer as newly created aggregate output. Include relevant nonprofit service outcomes and beneficiary perspectives alongside macroeconomic measures. Examine whether services support sustained opportunities and self-sufficiency where those are the stated objectives, without presuming that all charitable purposes are captured by income or employment measures.
Performance Indicators
3.2.1: Median purchasing power
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Assess sustained increases in real median disposable household income with accompanying market-income measures. |
Other Information
Annual percentage change using a declared inflation measure, household adjustment, population, source, and period. Show pre-transfer market income, taxes and transfers separately where data permit; report distributional differences. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
3.2.2: Employment opportunities
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Assess sustained improvements in employment opportunities. |
Other Information
Employment-to-population ratio for a declared working-age population, with hours, earnings, and job quality as companion measures. State age boundaries and demographic composition; report percentage-point changes separately from percentage changes. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 3.3: Sustainability 🔗
Assess sustainability and intergenerational consequences of resource allocation.
Stakeholders:
Show Hide 2 members👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
🏢Office of Management and Budget Budget and management integration : Proposed role: Explore links among budget resources, strategic objectives, and performance evidence; assess usefulness for resource allocation and management. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Department of the Treasury Public financial information : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on public financial data, accounting boundaries, transaction classifications, and reconciliation. (Performer)
👥Future Generations Intergenerational well-being : Proposed role: Benefit from durable productive capacity and sustainable fiscal, natural, and other resource conditions rather than costs shifted into the future. (Beneficiary)
Other Information
Use multiple time horizons rather than treating short-run gains as sufficient. Examine financing costs, debt servicing, capital maintenance, natural resources, contingent liabilities, and resilience. Report sensitivity to assumptions; do not collapse all dimensions into an opaque prosperity score.
Performance Indicators
3.3.1: Debt-service burden
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess whether debt-service burdens remain consistent with durable fiscal capacity. |
Other Information
Public net interest payments divided by public revenue for the selected jurisdiction and period; define consolidation and financing assumptions. Assess scenarios over 1-, 5-, and 10-year horizons and longer where material; no universal numerical threshold is asserted. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
3.3.2: Net social benefit
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Currency | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess net social benefits over time against credible alternatives. |
Other Information
Estimate discounted real benefits less real resource costs in a declared currency and price year. Disclose discount rates, time horizon, nonmonetized effects, distribution, uncertainty, tax-financing costs, externalities, and opportunity costs. Do not count transfers themselves as net social benefits or double count benefits embodied in other measures. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Goal 4: Decisions 🔗
Improve decisions through accessible evidence about resources, results, and tradeoffs.
Objective 4.1: Comparisons 🔗
Enable comparisons among feasible resource-allocation alternatives.
Stakeholders:
👥Public and Private Resource Managers Allocation and management decisions : Proposed role: Use evidence to compare alternatives, manage resources, and document decisions and subsequent results. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Investors and Capital Providers Capital allocation : Proposed role: Use linked financial and performance information to assess opportunities, risks, and longer-term returns. (Beneficiary)
👥Taxpayers, Voters, and Residents Public accountability : Proposed role: Examine who pays, who benefits, what results occur, and which tradeoffs follow; apply their own values to the evidence. (Beneficiary)
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
👥Donors, Foundations, and Grantmakers Voluntary resource allocation : Proposed role: Use and contribute evidence to allocate voluntary contributions and grants, assess results and opportunity costs, and identify complementary efforts. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Compare continuation, modification, reduction, expansion, or alternative provision where feasible. Include private, voluntary, and decentralized alternatives when relevant. Do not assume the most expensive option or the smallest government is necessarily most effective. Enable donors and grantmakers to compare charitable alternatives and combinations with public or commercial provision, including complementarity, substitution, shared benefits, and full resource costs.
Performance Indicators
4.1.1: Comparative evidence
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase the share of pilot decisions supported by documented alternatives and tradeoffs. |
Other Information
Numerator: pilot decision cases with a baseline alternative, at least one feasible alternative, comparable costs and outcomes, uncertainty, and distributional and long-term considerations. Denominator: all pilot decision cases. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
4.1.2: Decision usefulness
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase users reporting that evidence materially improved their assessment of alternatives. |
Other Information
Use a predefined task-based evaluation and disclose participant selection, sample size, nonresponse, and question wording. Corroborate self-reports with decision records or task accuracy; do not infer improved economic outcomes from satisfaction alone. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 4.2: Access & Scrutiny 🔗
Enable access and independent scrutiny of evidence and analysis.
Stakeholders:
🏢U.S. Government Accountability Office Independent assessment : Proposed role: Consider reviewing the usefulness, reliability, costs, and limitations of proposed resource-to-results connections. (Performer)
👥Software Developers and AI Tool Providers Tools and validation : Proposed role: Build extraction, linking, validation, search, and analysis capabilities with traceable evidence and human review. (Performer)
👥Journalists and Civic Analysts Independent scrutiny : Proposed role: Interpret, challenge, and communicate evidence and uncertainties for public use. (Performer)
👥Taxpayers, Voters, and Residents Public accountability : Proposed role: Examine who pays, who benefits, what results occur, and which tradeoffs follow; apply their own values to the evidence. (Beneficiary)
👥Charitable Beneficiaries and Service Users Experience and outcomes : Proposed role: Help define meaningful outcomes and assess service quality, access, and sustained improvements; benefit from effective services while retaining personal agency. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Publish reusable data, methods, limitations, and correction histories. Enable users to apply their own values and priorities. Use public information and avoid creating individualized taxpayer or beneficiary profiles.
Performance Indicators
4.2.1: Analytical reproducibility
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Increasing | Increase independent reproduction of published analytical results within declared tolerances. |
Other Information
Numerator: sampled analytical results independently reproduced from published data, code, and assumptions. Denominator: sampled results. Record unavailable inputs and explain tolerances. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
4.2.2: Analysis effort
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Hours | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Decreasing | Reduce analyst time for equivalent evidence-based tasks without reducing accuracy. |
Other Information
Measure median hours per predefined task using linked data and the comparison workflow; include verification and correction time, tool costs separately, and paired accuracy results. Report learning effects and sample size. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Goal 5: Demonstrations 🔗
Demonstrate useful and proportionate connections between financial disclosures and strategy data.
Objective 5.1: Pilot 🔗
Complete a bounded pilot with accepted responsibilities and a reviewable measurement protocol.
Stakeholders:
🏢U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy Strategy data interoperability : Proposed role: Explore connections between strategy data, financial resources, and performance evidence through the U.S. Strategy Data initiative. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Financial data expertise : Proposed role: Contribute expertise on financial disclosure semantics, quality, usability, and existing public datasets within applicable authority. (Performer)
🏢Office of Management and Budget Budget and management integration : Proposed role: Explore links among budget resources, strategic objectives, and performance evidence; assess usefulness for resource allocation and management. (Performer)
👥Participating Government Organizations Objectives and resource stewardship : Proposed role: Identify objectives, explain resource use and performance, and review proposed links; participation by governments at different levels remains voluntary within their authorities. (Performer)
👥Participating Companies and Financial Data Providers Disclosure interpretation : Proposed role: Explain existing public disclosures, relevant definitions, and comparability limits; review mappings without assuming endorsement or imposing new reporting requirements. (Performer)
👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
👥Software Developers and AI Tool Providers Tools and validation : Proposed role: Build extraction, linking, validation, search, and analysis capabilities with traceable evidence and human review. (Performer)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Donors, Foundations, and Grantmakers Voluntary resource allocation : Proposed role: Use and contribute evidence to allocate voluntary contributions and grants, assess results and opportunity costs, and identify complementary efforts. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥AI/SI Developers, Operators, and Reviewers Assisted analysis and accountable operation : Proposed role: Apply and evaluate AI tools for extraction, semantic mapping, relationship discovery, scenario analysis, explanation, and monitoring; retain identifiable human responsibility for adopted mappings, claims, and resource decisions. (Performer)
Other Information
Select one public objective and a relevant economic sector with available financial and outcome data. Require a defensible financial-data connection, a manageable scope, named consenting participants, and existing public sources. Do not require a new interagency organization or reporting mandate. Where a relevant and willing nonprofit partner is available, include a charitable resource-to-result chain in the bounded pilot. Use one selected outcome and compatible public, commercial, and charitable evidence rather than increasing scope solely to represent every sector. Compare an AI-assisted workflow with the agreed reference workflow and evaluate the historical taxonomy bridge within the interoperability work.
Performance Indicators
5.1.1: Pilot readiness
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Agreed | Agree a pilot charter, responsible participants, scope, public sources, resources, baseline procedure, and evaluation protocol before implementation. |
Other Information
Qualitative acceptance checklist; distinguish invitation, acceptance, and execution. An unaccepted proposed role does not establish ownership. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
5.1.2: Pilot expenditure
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Currency | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Assessed | Assess full pilot expenditure against its agreed scope and resource ceiling. |
Other Information
Track actual USD expenditure by period, including staff, contractors, computing, maintenance, evaluation, and documented in-kind resources separately. Set a ceiling only when participants accept a budget; report forecast operating costs. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
5.1.3: Demonstration package
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Published | Publish a validated demonstration package with linked records, queries, findings, limitations, and reusable methods. |
Other Information
Review completeness against the agreed charter. Include a StratML representation and mappings, a source register, data dictionary, validation and semantic test results, and an independently reviewable worked example. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
Objective 5.2: Evaluation 🔗
Evaluate demonstration benefits, costs, and limitations before wider adoption.
Stakeholders:
Show Hide 1 member👥Economists, Statisticians, and Independent Evaluators Economic evaluation : Proposed role: Define measures, assess causal claims, examine alternatives and uncertainty, and independently reproduce findings. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Government Accountability Office Independent assessment : Proposed role: Consider reviewing the usefulness, reliability, costs, and limitations of proposed resource-to-results connections. (Performer)
👥Public and Private Resource Managers Allocation and management decisions : Proposed role: Use evidence to compare alternatives, manage resources, and document decisions and subsequent results. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Taxpayers, Voters, and Residents Public accountability : Proposed role: Examine who pays, who benefits, what results occur, and which tradeoffs follow; apply their own values to the evidence. (Beneficiary)
👥Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations Mission delivery and evidence : Proposed role: Voluntarily publish strategic objectives, resource uses, outputs, and outcomes; connect grants, donations, earned revenues, and volunteer contributions to mission results; review evidence and collaborate on shared objectives. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥Charitable Beneficiaries and Service Users Experience and outcomes : Proposed role: Help define meaningful outcomes and assess service quality, access, and sustained improvements; benefit from effective services while retaining personal agency. (Performer, Beneficiary)
👥AI/SI Developers, Operators, and Reviewers Assisted analysis and accountable operation : Proposed role: Apply and evaluate AI tools for extraction, semantic mapping, relationship discovery, scenario analysis, explanation, and monitoring; retain identifiable human responsibility for adopted mappings, claims, and resource decisions. (Performer)
Other Information
Separate data-service improvements from economic changes observed in the pilot domain. Assess whether evidence justifies continued investment, revision, expansion, or termination. Report null and adverse findings and burden shifted to data producers.
Performance Indicators
5.2.1: Net analytical value
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Demonstrated | Demonstrate decision-useful gains that justify full development, operation, verification, and participation costs. |
Other Information
Evaluate time and accuracy improvements, reproducibility, documented decisions, recurring costs, reporting burden, and alternatives. Report monetized and nonmonetized benefits separately; specify uncertainty and avoid attributing all subsequent economic gains to the pilot. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.
5.2.2: Evaluation transparency
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Published | Publish independent findings and a reasoned continuation, revision, expansion, or termination recommendation. |
Other Information
Declare evaluators, conflicts, methods, baseline results, limitations, and responses to criticisms. Adoption and usage may be reported as intermediate measures but are not substitutes for demonstrated usefulness. Proposed indicator and target condition; baseline, numeric threshold, target dates, data custodian, and review schedule remain to be agreed. No ActualResult is asserted.