Encoding cost is what closed this market, and it has collapsed

What was held: The central claim of the whole site. Nobody replicated Singapore because the cost of hand-encoding one jurisdiction's rules, multiplied by twenty thousand jurisdictions, exceeded any plausible return — and that number had just moved, because machines can now read the rules. It was the climax of the argument and the entire investment case.
What was done: Looked for what happened to the engine after Singapore, and for research on why automated compliance checking gets adopted.
What came back: Refuted. Singapore's checking engine was transplanted — a Norwegian pilot on the e-PlanCheck base, a completed New York City pilot on ICC codes, testing with Japanese and Australian models. All four inherited the encoding for free and none has been identified reaching production. If encoding cost were the binding constraint, at least one should have cleared. Separately, the best available adoption study finds twelve governing variables and eight of them are non-technical.
What it cost: The largest of the project. Four of them were deleted, the outcome figure withdrawn, and the argument now ends on a diagnosis with no priced payoff. E-051 keeps its ID and its Untested grade — the cost is still unmeasured and still worth measuring, and is no longer claimed to be what closed the market. What is now genuinely unknown is what did, and that has no register row because it cannot yet be stated precisely enough to grade.

RegisterE-051 E-078 E-079 E-080 E-081 E-082 check these rows →