About – Jake Lee

When decisions carry real consequences, most research fails not because it’s wrong, but because it was never designed for judgment under pressure. I focus on that gap. It is the moment when analytic output meets real decision incentives and everything that looked smart falls silent.

Over years of working inside analytics teams and with strategic leadership, I’ve seen the same pattern again and again. Models are technically sound. Methods pass every academic check. And still, no clarity where it matters. What was presented as “insight” becomes an artifact to be debated, not a foundation to decide.

Along the way, I learned to read failure before it happens. I look for methods optimized for process compliance rather than real choices. I look for cases where standard tools lull a team into confidence they can’t defend. That distinction is not about being clever. It is about producing evidence that survives disagreement, not just produces charts.

My own journey taught me that the problem isn’t methodology. It is the absence of a discipline that connects decisions to methods before execution begins. That realization changed how I approach every engagement.

If you want to understand why most research fails in the room where it matters, start with the problem, not the output.

[Why Analytic Governance Exists →]

Evidence standards and belief hygiene:

• The Minimum Evidence Standard for Discrete Choice
• Where Did the Resistance Go? A Hygiene Standard for Downgrading Belief in Empirical Claims
• The Citation Triage Rule