Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify a real market and describe its structure and behaviour
4 weeks
Select a specific real market and identify its structure using standard structural indicators: number of firms, market concentration (HHI or CR4), entry barriers, product differentiation, and price-setting behaviour. Use real data from national statistics agencies, company annual reports, or competition authority decisions. Produce at least one summary statistic supporting the structure assessment.
Proof required
Market structure description document (500+ words) identifying the specific market, describing structure using at least three structural indicators with real data supporting each, and explaining the market behaviour characteristics consistent with that structure.
What gets checked
- Market is identified specifically — not 'the technology sector'
- At least three structural indicators are addressed with real data supporting each
- Market behaviour characteristics are connected to the identified structure
Common mistakes
- Selecting a market too broad to be analysed — 'the food market' is not analysable; 'the UK ready-to-eat chilled meals market' is
- Asserting market structure without data — structure must be supported by real concentration or pricing evidence
- Not connecting structure to behaviour — different structures produce different pricing and differentiation patterns
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check structural indicators — confirm real data is cited for at least three
- Review market selection — confirm it is specific enough to be meaningfully analysable
- Check structure-behaviour connection — confirm market behaviour is tied to the identified structure
Apply a microeconomic model to explain and predict market behaviour
4 weeks
Apply a named microeconomic model to the M1 market — game theory (oligopoly), monopolistic competition and product differentiation, price discrimination models, or competition policy theory. Explain at least one real observed behaviour in the market using the model, and make a specific prediction about market response to a named change (new entrant, regulatory intervention, or cost shock).
Proof required
Model application document (500+ words) naming the model, applying it to explain at least one real observed market behaviour with evidence, and producing a specific prediction about market response to a named change with model-based reasoning.
What gets checked
- A named microeconomic model is applied — not 'basic supply and demand'
- At least one real observed market behaviour is explained with evidence
- A specific prediction with model reasoning is made about a named change
Common mistakes
- Describing the model without applying it to generate specific market behaviour explanations
- Prediction without model reasoning — 'prices will fall' without mechanism is not a microeconomic prediction
- Applying game theory to markets with too many players — 2–5 key players is the tractable range
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review model application — confirm it produces a specific explanation of observed behaviour
- Check prediction — confirm it is derived from the model with explicit reasoning
- Verify appropriate model choice for the market structure identified in M1
Defend market analysis under economist or competition analyst challenge
1 week
Present the market analysis to an economist, competition analyst, or industry economist. The reviewer must probe structure and model application — 'your HHI is below the normal oligopoly threshold — why classify this as oligopoly?', 'your game theory assumes symmetric players but they are not — how does that affect predictions?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's economics or competition analysis credentials, at least three specific challenges to structure or model with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is an economist, competition analyst, or industry economist
- At least three specific challenges to structure or model are documented
- At least one analysis update is committed to
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates structural conclusions without probing the evidence
- Not being able to defend model choice under asymmetric-player challenge
- No analysis updates after a genuine model-application challenge
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is an economist, competition analyst, or industry economist
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges are documented
- Check that at least one analysis update is committed to
Part of