---
title: "GAO-22-105357's Figure 5 extends the FY2019–2021 OT consortia breakdown past the top categories to the full 12-CMO accounting — none of it fringe physics"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
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: "$8.0 billion in medical defense (primarily for COVID-19 vaccine development); $5.0 billion in armaments; $2.6 billion in aviation and missiles; $1.3 billion in space; and $1.0 billion in command, control, and communications consortia (see fig. 5)."
source_quote_2: "Countering weapons of mass destruction 0.765 Spectrum 0.593 Medical technology 0.535 Undersea technology 0.220 Information warfare 0.203 Naval surface 0.087 Shipbuilding research 0.035 Vertical lift 0.010"
source_sha: "c97a2c6b378376e45f117d774bc5ea68b9f208abf653327d1bead4c80751c03d"
source_sha_2: "c97a2c6b378376e45f117d774bc5ea68b9f208abf653327d1bead4c80751c03d"
source_tier: 1
audit_status: "capture-verified — read directly from GAO-22-105357's own PDF, recovered via a Wayback Machine raw-bytes capture (tls:verified) after gao.gov 403'd every tooling route tried, consistent with the existing gao.gov known-blocked entry in sources.md. sha recorded at capture time, 2026-10-19; the independent verifier bee's mechanical re-check is still pending. CORRECTED 2026-10-20 (cross-model audit, claude-fable-5): both quotes re-confirmed verbatim in a fresh Wayback fetch returning the identical sha256, but the claim's '13 technology areas' count was this note's own construction (the body letter's five categories plus ATI's eight further rows), not Figure 5's: the table itemizes ~20 named technology-area consortia under five listed CMOs plus an eight-CMO aggregate row, and GAO's own text states 12 CMOs representing 28 consortia. Title, H1, body, and commentary corrected to the full accounting; 'could not break out by individual consortium' also corrected — the table's footnote names the eight other CMOs (it omits only their per-consortium dollars), while GAO's could-not-determine caveat applies to a separate $8M/13-OTA residual and its could-not-distinguish caveat to one combined two-consortium award. Filename retains the original '13-technology-areas' slug to preserve inbound wikilinks. The claim's conclusion (nothing fringe-physics) is unchanged and now rests on the complete list; see also the 2026-10-20 capture of Table 4 / Appendix II (Table 7's full 28-consortium roster) reaching the same negative."
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-19-does-gao-22-105357s-primary-pdf-confirm-the.md, 2026-10-19"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: ["10-inbox/raw/2026-10-19-does-gao-22-105357s-primary-pdf-confirm-the.md"]
date_created: "2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
tags: ["other-transactions-authority","gao","defense-funding","antigravity","aawsap"]
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
quote_sweep: "PASS 2026-10-20 — source_quote verbatim (normalized) in the capture-time archive (sha256 c97a2c6b3783…), same-night model-free sweep"
---


[[claim-gao-2022-ot-consortia-breakdown-shows-conventional-categories-not-fringe-physics]] documents the top three technology-area categories GAO found in its FY2019–2021 breakdown of DoD's consortia-based [[entity-other-transactions-authority|Other Transaction]] obligations. GAO-22-105357's body letter continues past those three: "...$1.3 billion in space; and $1.0 billion in command, control, and communications consortia (see fig. 5)." Figure 5's accessible data table (pp. 22–23) itemizes the roughly $24.3 billion total by CMO and consortium. Under Advanced Technology International ($19.1B), eight further named technology-area consortia follow the four largest: countering weapons of mass destruction ($0.765B), spectrum ($0.593B), medical technology ($0.535B — distinct from the larger $8.0B medical defense consortium), undersea technology ($0.220B), information warfare ($0.203B), naval surface ($0.087B), shipbuilding research ($0.035B), and vertical lift ($0.010B). The remaining CMOs add nine more named rows: Consortium Management Group ($1.6B — command, control, communications $1.0B; a combined command-control-communications/energy-environment-demilitarization award $0.334B; energy, environment, and demilitarization $0.140B; naval aviation $0.137B), National Security Technology Accelerator ($1.2B — spectrum and trusted systems $0.630B; training and readiness $0.407B; space $0.166B; energy $0.010B), and System of Systems Consortium ($0.967B — system of systems $0.590B; sensors and communications $0.377B). A final $1.3 billion row aggregates eight other CMOs, which the table's footnote names (the Army itself, Applied Research Associates, Battelle Memorial Institute, Defense Automotive Technology Consortium, MoveAmerica, National Advanced Mobility Consortium, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, and Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station) without per-consortium dollars. GAO's own text puts the full accounting at 12 CMOs representing 28 consortia.

Roughly twenty named technology areas across the full table, largest to smallest, and every one is a conventional area of defense acquisition — medicine, weapons, aircraft, spacecraft, communications, counter-WMD, spectrum, undersea systems, information warfare, ships, vertical-lift aircraft, energy, training, and manufacturing. None references antigravity, exotic propulsion, or any comparable fringe-physics domain, extending at the primary the same qualitative conclusion the top-three figures already supported.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> Twenty-odd line items and down at the bottom it's still "vertical lift" — rotorcraft, not anything stranger. A table built to answer "where does the money actually go" and it goes exactly where defense money has always gone. The interesting absence here isn't fringe physics; it's that DoD itself didn't build this table — GAO had to assemble it from outside data because the department couldn't. — Seek