PolicyEngine / PolicyEngine/snap-qc-sim
Sampling-schedule election module: standard vs reduced, priced
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 0
- Avg merge
- 18m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
All 53 jurisdictions elected the reduced schedule (with its agreement not to dispute findings on precision grounds) before precision priced tiers worth tens of millions. The app's review-volume slider shows the variance effect of extra reviews; formalize it as the actual election: standard-formula vs reduced sample sizes per 7 CFR 275.11, the dispute-rights tradeoff, per-review cost assumptions, and the deadline mechanics (plan changes due 60/30 days before implementation). Answers a state's real question: is reverting to the standard schedule worth it at my tier boundary?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the app’s review-volume slider and understanding how it currently represents the variance effect of extra reviews. Read 7 CFR 275.11 and clarify the standard versus reduced schedules, dispute-rights tradeoff, per-review costs, and 60/30-day plan-change deadlines. Done should answer whether reverting to the standard schedule is worthwhile at a state’s tier boundary.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100