The argument

When the only instrument measures efficiency, everything that isn't efficiency becomes invisible.

For about forty years, we have run public problems through instruments built for private ones — cost-benefit ratios, efficiency targets, performance dashboards — borrowed until a method hardened into a worldview. There was nothing wrong with any of this in business. The error was importing it whole into a place it was never built for.

Public problems are not private problems with worse margins. A firm can exit a market that no longer pays; a government often cannot — because the thing failing is also carrying identity, equity, public health, social trust: value no revenue line records. And a public policy is not only a fix for a problem — it is one of the ways a state intervenes in its environment to pursue goals, express priorities, and steer change. That deserves better instruments than the ones we've been borrowing — built again, deliberately, on three commitments.

Commitment 01
Built for the public sector. Hold several kinds of value at once instead of collapsing them into one; treat compliance as substance, and stability as something to protect, not optimise away.
Commitment 02
Built on theory. Every tool traceable to named, published work — not intuition dressed as rigor, not an atheoretical dashboard, not AI without a mechanism.
Commitment 03
Built to open a debate, not close one. Force the trade-offs into the open, to be weighed by people rather than settled by a formula. A deliberation aid, not an optimiser.

The public sector deserves its own tools. Let's build them.