On page 15 of your report, you mention two other reports: “Analysis of Fleet Requirements for FWSAR” and “30-minute Continuous Readiness Posture Analysis”. I'm going to read from the “Review of the Statement of Operational Requirement for the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft”:
However, the data used to determine both the hourly decrease in survivability and also the number of people who might have survived was highly filtered and conclusions were drawn based on “witness testimony and anecdotal evidence“ with no raw data presented as “there was insufficient data within the text of the mission reports to properly assess each case for reaction consequence.” Further, only 119 of the 1054 cases were used to draw conclusions on survivability and chances of survival. This study should not be used as a cornerstone to assess either survivability or the impact of holding 24-hour per day 30-minute standby on survivability.
I'm assuming you're saying to the government that the methodology was flawed, that the data were inadequate, and that the government should not draw conclusions based on this source. Is that fair to say?