The book, extended
Blogs
Concepts explained, standards pressure-tested, and market claims answered. The posts follow the book's three acts. ACT I: why the current value system fails. ACT II: how value actually behaves. ACT III: how value is governed into existence. Start with the act that matches your question, jump straight to a topic below, or browse everything. Claims here stay under review; what changes is recorded in The Claims Register. New to the vocabulary? The glossary defines the standard’s terms in one place.
Browse by Topic ▾
Browse by Chapter of the Book ▾
Browse by Role ▾
Federal buyers must review their schedule purchase agreements in writing every year. Under the acquisition overhaul that review is going from three items to six, and none asks what the purchase produced.
The International Accounting Standards Board proposed that companies disclose whether an acquisition met the targets they set on the day they bought it, and that is the line now proposed for removal.
The objections are predictable, a few of them are fair, and the vendor with real results has the most to gain from the page.
Public buyers in the UK now rate their suppliers every year and publish the verdict for the next buyer. The register that would let that buyer compare ratings is still described in the future tense.
Vendors now sell results priced per outcome. Unless the buyer holds custody of the measurement before signature, an outcome contract pays for whatever the vendor decides to count.
The list price of the leading model fell by about a fifth while it spends roughly three times the median number of tokens to finish the same work, and only one of those numbers was in the announcement.
The federal quality rules were rebuilt from a blank page last year. The word verify appears three times in them, and none of the three asks what the purchase was supposed to produce.
An analyst firm has put a deadline on proof, and nothing in the advice says where the claim being tested comes from or whose words it is written in.
Economics set value in use aside in 1776, and sellers picked it up around 2003, which left the buyer with no instrument of its own.
The Department of Health and Social Care published a national standard for value in medical technology in June. Every mandatory line in it is about weighting a tender, and the word verify appears nowhere.