Skip to main content
WIL · Research Transparency

Research Transparency

Institutional trust requires transparency. This page documents WIL's methodologies, data sources, update frequencies, research standards, confidence framework, and publication review process.

5MethodologiesRegistered frameworks
7Data sourcesCataloged datasets
4Confidence bandsHigh · Moderate · Limited · Directional
QuarterlyPrimary refreshBLS · Census · EIA

Methodologies

All analytical frameworks are documented in the Methodology Registry with version history, validation status, and component transparency. Framework maturity is classified as Experimental, Beta, Validated, or Institutional.

Data sources

WIL research draws exclusively from primary public sources and curated activity trackers. The Dataset Registry catalogs each dataset with coverage, geography, refresh frequency, and data dictionaries.

Update frequencies

SourceFrequencyScope
BLS OEWSAnnualCompensation medians · role families
BLS QCEWQuarterlyConstruction employment · state markets
USAspendingQuarterlyFederal award momentum · obligations
Census BPSMonthlyBuilding permit authorizations
EIA-860MQuarterlyPlanned generation capacity
Multi-ATS postingsMonthly snapshotHiring demand signals
Contractor registriesQuarterlyLicense supply census

Research standards

  • Directional operational reads — not deterministic forecasts or hiring recommendations
  • Banded outputs (High, Elevated, Moderate, Low) rather than point estimates where uncertainty is material
  • Source attribution on every publication with methodology version cited
  • Versioned methodology revisions with documented change history
  • Confidence framing on every publication — see confidence framework below
  • No employer rankings, no compensation offers, no recruiting recommendations

Confidence framework

High

Multiple corroborating public sources; validated methodology; stable data cadence.

Moderate

Primary source available but with known lag, coverage gaps, or single-source dependency.

Limited

Directional read from partial data; significant coverage or timeliness constraints.

Directional

Experimental methodology or composite under validation; interpret as signal, not finding.

Publication review process

  1. Draft — Research fellow or analyst produces initial working paper
  2. Internal review — Methodology team validates source attribution and confidence framing
  3. Advisory review — External methodology advisors review framework applications (for Tier 1 reports)
  4. Publication — Released to the public research library with full metadata
  5. Revision — Updated on source refresh cadence; version history maintained in methodology registry