Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify a real macroeconomic policy question and assess the evidence
4 weeks
Select a real contested macroeconomic policy question — fiscal multipliers, monetary policy transmission, quantitative easing effects, or supply-side policy — and assemble the key empirical evidence: at least four studies (two each side), their methodologies, and an initial evidence assessment. Use FRED or World Bank Open Data to produce at least one data visualisation supporting or contextualising the question.
Proof required
Evidence assessment document (600+ words) covering: the policy question, at least four studies with methodologies and findings, initial assessment of the state of evidence, and at least one data visualisation from a free public data source with explanation.
What gets checked
- Policy question is empirically contested — not settled macroeconomic theory
- At least four studies are identified with methodologies described — not just cited
- At least one data visualisation is produced from a real free public data source with the source cited
Common mistakes
- Selecting a question with overwhelming one-sided evidence and presenting it as contested
- Describing studies by conclusion without describing methodology
- Not using real data — a macroeconomic policy assessment without data visualisation is incomplete
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check at least one cited study is real and findings match the paper
- Verify data visualisation is from a real free data source — access the cited link
- Review evidence assessment — confirm it reflects the genuine state of the evidence
Apply a macroeconomic model and derive policy implications
4 weeks
Apply a named macroeconomic framework (IS-LM, AD-AS, New Keynesian DSGE, or sectoral balances) to the M1 policy question. Derive at least two specific policy implications, identify the model's key assumptions, specify which are most likely violated in the real-world context, and explain the gap between model predictions and M1 empirical evidence.
Proof required
Policy analysis document (600+ words) naming the macroeconomic framework, deriving at least two specific policy implications with reasoning, identifying key assumptions, specifying which are most likely violated in context, and explaining the gap between model predictions and M1 evidence.
What gets checked
- A specific named macroeconomic framework is applied — not generic 'economic theory'
- At least two specific policy implications are derived from the model with reasoning
- Gap between model predictions and empirical evidence is explicitly addressed
Common mistakes
- Describing the model without applying it to generate specific predictions about this question
- Treating model assumptions as background rather than potential failure sources
- Not engaging with the M1 empirical evidence to explain prediction/observation gaps
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review framework application — confirm it generates specific predictions about this question
- Check key assumptions — confirm most-likely-violated assumptions are identified with reasoning
- Verify engagement with M1 evidence — confirm the gap is explicitly addressed
Defend macroeconomic analysis under economist challenge
1 week
Present the analysis to an economist or economics academic for a Q&A. The reviewer must probe model application and recommendations — 'your IS-LM assumes fixed prices — how does relaxing that change conclusions?', 'your evidence comes from one country — how does institutional context affect generalizability?', 'what would falsify your preferred policy position?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's economics credentials, at least three specific challenges to the model application or policy conclusions with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is an economist or economics academic
- At least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
- At least one analysis update is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates without probing specific model assumptions
- Not being able to state what would falsify the preferred policy position
- No updates after a genuine macroeconomic methodology challenge
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is an economist or economics academic
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific model or policy challenges are documented
- Check that at least one analysis update is committed to
Part of