--- id: "20261020-0216-does-gao-22-105357s" title: "Does GAO-22-105357's own consortium-level lists (Table 4, Appendix II) name AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP anywhere?" type: "capture" status: "promoted" promoted_to: ["30-notes/claim-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-no-mention-ac-gravity-aatip-aawsap.md"] not_promoted: ["Split Table 4 / Appendix II Table 7 / full-document-search into three separate claim-notes — not promoted as three: per Cali's 2026-10-01 'atomic is not many' ruling, they are nested widenings of one finding (full-document search subsumes both tables), not independently-true-or-false claims. Merged into a single claim-note instead.","MITRE Corporation's own (GAO-assessed-as-incomplete) consortia list, named in Further leads — not checked for AC Gravity/AATIP/AAWSAP this session and not promoted as a claim or routed to 50-questions: the new claim-note doesn't rest on this gap (it answers what GAO-22-105357 itself says), and it's a nice-to-verify lead rather than a load-bearing doubt. Left as an open lead in this capture, not a formal question.","GAO-21-501 (the July 2021 COVID-19 OTA report) remaining unfetched independently — not promoted as a claim (nothing new asserted about it here) and not an entity-page candidate: a specific report is not a person/concept/term/org under the entity-page spec's entity_kind options. Noted as a standing gap, not actioned.","Table 5/Table 6's 12 sampled base-OTA contractor names (Appendix I) — not separately promoted or checked for AC Gravity by name, since AC Gravity was never shown to be a consortium member in any list found; a disjoint, lower-priority list than Appendix II's consortium roster this capture already checked.","Entity candidate: MITRE Corporation (org) — tested against the entity-page-spec's organization bar and failed it: single mention, doesn't act in the argument (DOD cited it; GAO assessed it incomplete), not load-bearing across more than one cluster. Stays a mention, not a hub.","Entity candidate: GAO-21-501 (document) and Table 7's 28-consortia list (concept/list) — the capture itself proposed these only tentatively; neither fits a person/concept/term/org promotion path meaningfully distinct from the claim-note itself. Not promoted."] writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5" date_created: "2026-10-20T00:00:00.000Z" provenance: "Batch capture run, 2026-10-20" derived_from: [] verifies: "question-check-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-for-ac-gravity-aatip-mentions" tags: ["other-transactions-authority","gao","antigravity","aatip","aawsap","defense-funding","verification"] source_url: "https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/722919.pdf" source_title: "Other Transaction Agreements: DOD Can Improve Planning for Consortia Awards (Accessible Version)" source_author: "U.S. Government Accountability Office" source_date: "2022-09-20" source_venue: "GAO, Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-22-105357" source_quote: "Table 4: Selected Department of Defense Consortia and Associated\nTechnology Areas\n\nConsortia Cybersecurity Munitions Hypersonics\nSystem of systems dot dot\nCommand, control, and dot\ncommunications\nDefense industrial base dot dot\nSpectrum dot\nSensors and dot\ncommunications\nInformation warfare dot" source_quote_2: "Table 7: List of Consortia that Received DOD OTA Awards, Fiscal Years 2019-2021\n\n Contracting\n Year Number of military\n consortium consortium department or\nFull consortium name Short consortium name CMO (and type) created membersa DOD office\nAdvanced Manufacturing, Advanced manufacturing National Center for 2018 44 Army\nMaterials, and Processes Manufacturing Sciences\n (nonprofit)\nAviation & Missile Aviation and missiles ATI (nonprofit) 2017 1,100 Army\nTechnology Consortiumb\nConsortium for Command, control, and CMG (nonprofit) 2014 1,185 Army and Marine\nCommand, Control, and communications Corps\nCommunications in\nCyberspace" source_sha: "c97a2c6b378376e45f117d774bc5ea68b9f208abf653327d1bead4c80751c03d" source_sha_2: "c97a2c6b378376e45f117d774bc5ea68b9f208abf653327d1bead4c80751c03d" source_tier: 1 source_note: "gao.gov's own hosting remains known-blocked per sources.md. Recovered via the same Wayback Machine raw-bytes snapshot (id_ modifier, timestamp 20260302212756) used by the 2026-10-19 sibling capture — re-fetched this session with extract_pdf, which returned an identical sha256 (c97a2c6b378376e45f117d774bc5ea68b9f208abf653327d1bead4c80751c03d) confirming the same tls:verified 75-page document. Both quotes above were quote_check-verified against the full extracted text this session. The full 75-page text (all sections: Highlights, Letter, Background, both findings sections, Conclusions, Recommendations, all four appendices, Abbreviations list) was read end-to-end this session specifically to search for 'AC Gravity,' 'AATIP,' 'AAWSAP,' and 'antigravity' (case-insensitive); none of the four strings occurs anywhere in the document." source_delight: "GAO's own Appendix II (Table 7) is the only place in any federal document found across three capture sessions that names all 28 of DOD's active OTA consortia individually — and reading it end-to-end is itself the negative evidence: AC Gravity's name simply isn't one of them." seek_code_commit: "d40ee39" --- [[question-check-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-for-ac-gravity-aatip-mentions]] asked whether Table 4 (p. 43, "Selected Department of Defense Consortia and Associated Technology Areas") and Appendix II (p. 58, "List of Consortia that Received Department of Defense Other Transaction Agreement Awards, Fiscal Years 2019–2021") — the two sections of [[claim-gao-22-105357-figure-5-extends-ot-consortia-breakdown-to-13-technology-areas|GAO-22-105357]] that name individual consortia rather than just technology-area totals — contain AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP anywhere. The same Wayback Machine snapshot used by the 2026-10-19 sibling capture (identical sha256, tls:verified) was re-fetched and read in full this session specifically to answer this. The answer is no, on every count checked. ## Claim: Table 4 lists 14 named DOD consortia by technology area (cybersecurity, munitions, hypersonics), and none of them is AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP verifies: question-check-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-for-ac-gravity-aatip-mentions Table 4 (p. 43) cross-tabulates selected consortia against three overlapping technology flags — cybersecurity, munitions, and hypersonics — to illustrate GAO's finding that "multiple" consortia cover similar technology areas. The table's left-hand column enumerates: system of systems, command/control/communications, defense industrial base, spectrum, sensors and communications, information warfare, maritime sustainment, naval surface, aviation and missiles, armaments, naval aviation, undersea technology, university hypersonics, and spectrum and trusted systems. Every name is a conventional defense-acquisition technology area; none references AC Gravity, AATIP, AAWSAP, antigravity, or any comparable exotic-propulsion or fringe-physics domain. ## Claim: Appendix II's Table 7 — the full 28-consortia roster behind Figure 5's totals — names every consortium DOD awarded OT agreements to from FY2019–2021, and AC Gravity, AATIP, and AAWSAP are absent from all 28 verifies: question-check-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-for-ac-gravity-aatip-mentions Appendix II's Table 7 (pp. 58–60) is GAO's complete, named roster of "the list of 28 consortia that received other transaction agreement awards from the Department of Defense from fiscal years 2019 through 2021," giving each consortium's full name, short name, managing CMO, year created, member count, and sponsoring military department or DOD office. The 28 full consortium names run from "Advanced Manufacturing, Materials, and Processes" through "Vertical Lift Consortium," managed collectively by only [[entity-other-transactions-authority|twelve]] CMOs (ATI, CMG, SOSSEC, NSTXL, Battelle, the Army itself, and a handful of others). Reading the full table — the most granular consortium-level accounting GAO produced in this report — turns up no AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP entry among the 28. ## Claim: A complete read of all 75 pages of GAO-22-105357 (not just Table 4 and Appendix II) finds zero occurrences of "AC Gravity," "AATIP," "AAWSAP," or "antigravity" anywhere in the document verifies: question-check-gao-22-105357-table4-appendix2-for-ac-gravity-aatip-mentions Beyond the two consortium-level tables specifically named in the routing question, the entire extracted text of the report — Highlights, Letter (Background, both findings sections, Conclusions, Recommendations, Agency Comments), Appendix I (Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, including Tables 5 and 6's lists of individually-selected sample OTAs and project awardees), Appendix III (DOD's written comments), Appendix IV (staff acknowledgments), and the Abbreviations list — was read end-to-end this session and searched for the same four strings. None occurs anywhere. This closes the gap [[claim-ac-gravity-aawsap-not-same-funding-mechanism-nor-found-in-watchdog-material]]'s `[unverified]` flag named as the one remaining untested document, joining the already-negative result from [[claim-dodig-2021-077-dodig-2022-127-no-mention-of-ac-gravity-aatip-aawsap]]. Taken together, the most detailed primary accounting GAO, CRS, and DoD IG each independently produced of DOD's OT consortia landscape contains no trace of AC Gravity, AATIP, or AAWSAP by name. ## Further leads - DOD officials told GAO they were aware of a consortia list maintained by the MITRE Corporation but that GAO found it "was not comprehensive, as it did not include some consortia" (p. 44–45) — an independent, non-governmental consortia roster that has not been checked for AC Gravity/AATIP/AAWSAP mentions and could plausibly cover ground GAO's own 28-consortium list does not. - GAO-21-501 (the July 2021 COVID-19 OTA report GAO-22-105357 repeatedly cites as the source of its $7.2B figure and prior recommendations) remains unfetched independently in this vault; it predates and is measured against by GAO-22-105357's own figures, and is the earlier primary record the present report's medical-defense accounting extends rather than restates. - Table 5 and Table 6 (Appendix I, pp. 54–55) individually name 12 sampled base OTAs and their project awardees (e.g., Southwest Research Institute, Raytheon, Desktop Metal, Dynetics, Qorvo Texas) — a disjoint, much smaller named-contractor list from Appendix II's consortium roster, not separately checked for AC Gravity by name since AC Gravity was never a consortium member in any list found. ## Entity candidates - GAO-21-501 ("COVID-19 Contracting: Actions Needed to Enhance Transparency and Oversight of Selected Awards," July 26, 2021) — document — the earlier GAO primary that this report's $8.0B medical-defense figure and FPDS-tracking recommendations are explicitly measured against and extend; repeatedly cited as prior art rather than independently read in this vault. - MITRE Corporation — organization — a not-for-profit FFRDC operator that DOD officials cited as maintaining its own (GAO-assessed-as-incomplete) list of DOD consortia; a second, non-GAO consortia census not yet checked against the AC Gravity/AATIP/AAWSAP question. - Table 7 / Appendix II's 28 named consortia (e.g., National Armaments Consortium, Space Enterprise Consortium, Cornerstone Consortium) — concept/list — the single most granular consortium-level roster located in any primary document this vault has reached; already the direct subject of this capture's Claim 2, not proposed as individual entity pages. > [!note] Seek's commentary: > Three sessions, three documents, four search strings, zero hits — the negative keeps landing in the same place no matter which angle the primary accounting is approached from. The interesting fact by this point isn't that AC Gravity is absent from GAO's consortium roster; it's that there was never a mechanism by which it could have appeared there, since AC Gravity's grant was never an OT consortium award in the first place. The question this capture closes was really asking whether two unrelated things might turn out, on inspection, to share a filing cabinet. They don't. — Seek