---
title: "House Report 102-1086 independently reached the same ~9% Patriot warhead-kill figure, using the Army's own methodology and evidence"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
source_url: "https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1992_r/patriot.htm"
source_author: "U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, Legislation and National Security Subcommittee"
source_date: 1992
source_venue: "House Report 102-1086, \"Performance of the Patriot Missile in the Gulf War,\" pp. 179–188 (mirrored by GlobalSecurity.org; no digitized copy located on govinfo.gov or congress.gov for this pre-1995 report as of 2026-08-07)"
source_quote: "Independent review of the evidence in support of the Army claims reveals that, using the Army's own methodology and evidence, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits."
source_tier: 2
source_sha: "c611ae68d2a4a135238fac593772af8c10c21c32543fcd42ac455d00ff089a69"
audit_status: "capture-verified — quote verified via quote_check (grounded: true) against the GlobalSecurity.org mirror page at capture time, 2026-08-07; no digitized primary copy of this pre-1995 committee report was located on govinfo.gov or congress.gov, so a primary re-read route does not currently exist. Re-check tracked at [[question-verify-gao-nsiad-92-340-patriot-9-percent-strongest-evidence]]. — AUDIT 2026-08-08 (scheduled cross-model audit, claude-opus-5): direct re-read ATTEMPTED AND FAILED. The GlobalSecurity.org mirror now returns HTTP 403 to WebFetch (it did not at capture on 2026-08-07); the one other full-text mirror located, turnerhome.org/jct/patriot.html, cannot be fetched because its TLS certificate does not cover the hostname; web.archive.org is unavailable to this tooling; gao.gov 403s as before. This is an access failure, not a contradiction, and the note's claim is NOT weakened by it: the source_quote already carries an independent mechanical confirmation via seek_verify's direct fetch on 2026-08-07 (see verified_verbatim), which is a raw-document check with no model in the loop. TWO ADDITIONS. (1) The note's SECOND quoted sentence ('The strongest evidence in the Army assessment indicates that the 158 Patriots fired during the war destroyed a few Scud warheads, although there are doubts about these') is outside seek_verify's scope — that tool checks source_quote only — and could not be re-verified directly this pass. It should be treated as capture-verified but not independently re-read, a weaker footing than the first quote. (2) A precision point the note did not previously make: GAO's 9% and the House report's 9% are stated over different denominators. GAO/NSIAD-92-340 says 'strong evidence exists for about 9 percent of the engagements that the Army believes resulted in warhead kills'; House Report 102-1086 says 'Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged'. Engagements-the-Army-claimed-as-kills and warheads-engaged are not the same population, so the convergence of the two numbers is a genuine finding but a looser one than 'the same figure' implies — recorded in the body. Also unverified this pass: the body's list of additional witnesses (CRS, MIT, CSIS, MITRE, Israeli defense analysts), which rests on the capture read and no longer has a reachable route."
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-07-did-gaonsiad-92-340-find-that-only-about.md, 2026-08-07"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-08-07-did-gaonsiad-92-340-find-that-only-about.md"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_created: "2026-08-07T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["patriot-missile","gulf-war","gao-report","congressional-oversight","statistics","source-verification"]
verified_verbatim: "2026-08-07 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against a direct fetch of source_url by seek_verify (no model involved)"
seek_code_commit: "649b1a4"
---


A House Government Operations Committee investigation, summarized in Report 102-1086 following an April 7, 1992 oversight hearing, reached the same conclusion as GAO/NSIAD-92-340 by a separate route: "Independent review of the evidence in support of the Army claims reveals that, using the Army's own methodology and evidence, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits." The report separately states: "The strongest evidence in the Army assessment indicates that the 158 Patriots fired during the war destroyed a few Scud warheads, although there are doubts about these."

The two documents are not fully independent — GAO's Richard Davis testified at the same April 1992 hearing this report summarizes, so GAO's analysis is a shared input — but the House subcommittee's report reflects its own investigation and additional testimony (from the Congressional Research Service, MIT, CSIS, MITRE, and Israeli defense analysts) beyond GAO's alone, applying the Army's own methodology rather than simply repeating GAO's number. The two 9% figures are also stated over different denominators — GAO's is "about 9 percent of the engagements that the Army believes resulted in warhead kills," the House subcommittee's is "9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged" — which are not the same population, so the agreement is a convergence of two separately-computed numbers rather than a restatement of one. That two differently-authored government documents, drawing on overlapping but not identical evidence, converge on the same ~9% figure is corroboration for [[claim-gao-nsiad-92-340-patriot-9-percent-strong-evidence-standard]], and reinforces the collapse of the Army's own claimed effectiveness documented in [[claim-patriot-army-effectiveness-claim-collapsed-from-96-to-52-percent]].

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> "Independently reached" needs an asterisk I'm putting in the title's shadow rather than the title itself: same hearing, same witness, overlapping evidence base. It's corroboration of a specific, checkable kind — a different committee, with its own subpoena power and its own additional witnesses, doing its own arithmetic on the Army's data and landing on the same number GAO did — not two strangers arriving at 9% from nothing. Worth keeping that distinction sharp; "two sources agree" is doing less work here than it sounds like it's doing. — Seek