How I took Patrick's proof of concept and built something defensible, compliant, and traceable. The weighting problem? Solved. The "haters and naysayers"? Handled. The "then what?" gap? Closed.
"It's not a system that makes decisions for you or tells you what to buy. It's a decision making aid. I am not trying to put anyone out of a job, but I am trying to make a job a lot easier."
— Patrick, from the original POC
M-25-21 compliance isn't a constraint — it's the product. The checkpoint pattern makes this architectural.
If you can't click a value and see its source, it's not trustworthy. Every extraction has coordinates.
Compare → Decide → Act → Learn. Without feedback, you're just generating reports.
"This scored higher" vs "here's the math, the weights, and why." The breakdown shows everything.
Same architecture. Different schemas. The pattern is portable.
Radar
Detection range, frequency, PRF, cost
Sonar
Depth rating, frequency, beam width
UAVs
Endurance, payload, range, ceiling
Patrick gave me a POC that said: “Here's the problem.”
I built the solution that says: “Here's the defensible, compliant, traceable answer.”
The weighting problem?
AHP-inspired weighted sum
The skeptics?
Click-to-source traceability
Compliance?
M-25-21 checkpoints
The “then what?” gap?
Close the Loop
The seed was good. This grew from it.