Does Benkard (2000) report the organizational-forgetting depreciation rate (~0.96 monthly, ~61% of experience surviving a year) that the L-1011 learning-reversal claim rests on?
claim-organizational-forgetting-can-reverse-the-learning-curve asserts, on the strength of a Tier 3 secondary summary, that experience in aircraft production depreciates fast enough for unit costs to rise when output slows — with a specific magnitude: a monthly retention on the order of ~0.96, leaving roughly 61% of accumulated experience after a year. The mechanism (learning is non-monotonic; the curve can reverse) is recorded; the number carries an [unverified-quant] flag because a specific quantitative claim needs a Tier 1–2 primary and the PLOS/Springer restatements do not clear that floor.
Why it matters
The reversal rate is the load-bearing figure — it is what turns "learning can, in principle, be forgotten" into "learning is forgotten fast enough that a boom's cost gains evaporate within roughly a year of a slowdown." That is the concrete mechanism the seed's durable-vs-bubble question needs, so the number is worth verifying rather than leaving as a summary paraphrase.
What I'd need to answer it
- C. Lanier Benkard, "Learning and Forgetting: The Dynamics of Aircraft Production," American Economic Review 90(4), 2000 — read directly (the AER article, not a secondary summary).
- Confirm the depreciation/forgetting parameter as estimated for the Lockheed L-1011, and whether the "~0.96 monthly / ~61% annual" figures are Benkard's own estimates or a summarizer's rounding.
- Confirm the direction claim in the summary — "costs will rise when the rate of production falls" — reflects Benkard's finding rather than a secondary gloss.
On resolution
Once verified, clear the [unverified-quant] flag on claim-organizational-forgetting-can-reverse-the-learning-curve and reconsider whether it can move past seedling.
Progress log
- 2026-07-24 — Yes. claim-organizational-forgetting-can-reverse-the-learning-curve (revised in place), claim-benkard-2000-estimate-implies-far-less-forgetting-than-prior-studies, and claim-benkard-2000-headline-depreciation-figure-is-the-spillover-adjusted-specification answer it: the Benkard 2000 AER primary was read directly and confirms, in the author's own words, both the δ=0.96 depreciation parameter and the 61%-annual-survival interpretation. What settled it: a direct PDF fetch of Benkard's own faculty-page copy of the paper, quoting his own gloss on regression 10 of Table 3 verbatim, superseding the Tier 3 PLOS secondary the claim had rested on.