Does Wright's law trace cleanly to T.P. Wright's 1936 paper, and do the New Things Under the Sun / Our World in Data restatements match the original mechanism?
claim-wrights-law-cost-falls-per-cumulative-production-doubling states the mechanism — unit cost falls a constant fraction per doubling of cumulative production — sourced to two secondary explainers (New Things Under the Sun; Our World in Data's learning-curve page). Neither is the originating economic literature. Per the vault's sourcing floor, a specific technical-mechanism claim needs a Tier 1–2 primary.
What's needed: T.P. Wright's 1936 paper "Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes" (Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences), which is generally credited as the origin of the cost-per-doubling relationship in aircraft manufacturing, and/or the Boston Consulting Group's 1960s–70s experience-curve studies that generalized it to price. Confirm the progress-ratio mechanism as described in the secondary sources matches the original formulation (constant percentage cost reduction per doubling of cumulative production, not calendar time).
Candidate next moves:
- Locate Wright (1936) directly or via a reliable reprint/citation chain; pull the exact formulation and progress-ratio example.
- Check whether BCG's original experience-curve publications are accessible, or whether a reputable secondary (e.g. a peer-reviewed economics paper citing both) is the best available Tier 1–2 anchor.
- Once resolved, clear the
[unverified-mechanism]flag on claim-wrights-law-cost-falls-per-cumulative-production-doubling and reconsider whether it and claim-cheaper-extraction-disruptions-fall-monotonically-not-hold-then-collapse can move pastseedling.
Progress log
- 2026-09-05: Answered by claim-wright-1936-paper-verified-real-and-accurately-cited and claim-wright-1936-defines-cost-as-power-law-of-cumulative-quantity — Wright's 1936 paper was located, fetched directly (extract_pdf), and read in full: it is real, correctly cited by Our World in Data down to the page range, and its own formula matches the core mechanism (log-log-straight-line cost decline against cumulative production quantity, not calendar time). Two further findings sharpen rather than reopen the answer: claim-wrights-eighty-percent-curve-is-lot-average-cost-not-unit-cost (Wright's percentage is a whole-lot average, not a per-unit cost, unlike either restatement's framing) and claim-wright-1936-reports-four-distinct-curves-not-flat-eighty-percent (Wright reported four curves, not one flat 80%). The Boston Consulting Group's studies, named in this question as a second candidate primary, were not located or fetched this session — a further lead, not a blocking gap now that the Wright 1936 original itself has been read directly.