[treis]

> (1) We believe scale will be critical. Also, qualitative and quantitative analysis. I do not think this can be solved only through technology.

This is the cavalier attitude that concerns me. If we are talking about predicting what wines people like than saying we believe scale will be critical is fine. When talking about something that will have a major impact on the lives of unwilling participants, you'd like to see at least some rigor.

> (2) Parolees are post conviction. We are focused on people who are incarcerated pre trial because they cannot afford bail.

People being Parolees or on bail doesn't make a difference to my point.

> (3) This is not what we said but really helpful to understand that is how it reads.

You don't think the care plan Promise creates will have a positive impact on those that go through the program?

[Blahah]

Can you elaborate on what additional rigor you would like to see, or in what way you think this is cavalier?

The parent said that qualitative and quantitative analysis will be used, and that technology is not the only solution. That is hardly cavalier imo.

[treis]

What I found specifically cavalier was the statement that they "believe scale will be critical". That sounds like every ML/data driven start up that doesn't have enough data to actually make accurate models. There's a lot of fake it til you make it in startups like these.

What rigor would look like to me is something like:

(1) Do a historical analysis of who skips court and why.

(2) Come up with a plausible intervention strategy to solve problems identified in (1)

(3) Test your strategy in a well designed pilot and calculate it's effectiveness

(4) Validate your pilot results on a larger scale

(5) Offer your product commercially nationwide