CIA-RDP96-00788R001500170016-2

Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001500170016-2
- ---
PROJECT 1291
CLIENT REPORT APPROVAL FORM
I have read: The Addendum to the Mid-Year Technical Report for FY 1988, Obiective E.
Task 4, and approve the document for reproduction and distribution.
Document approved as is.
Approved with noted corrections.
DisApproved
COMMENTS:
There are a number of serious concerns I have regarding this
document and the actual conduct of this experiment which, until
clarified and connected, preclude my giving approval.
My primary concern is with the lack of a rigorous design
for the work you are doing with this subject. IF486 he did to form
thials on a binary tach; follow up in FYSE was frustrated when, after
a large number of pilot efforts, the subject declined formal testing ( i) is
noted that the results of the pilot tests were not encouraging). In FY88
the subject continued to do vaguely defined tasks which, in my
opinion, will make it impossible to attain the primary objective
APPROVED:
Peter J. MoNelis, COTR
DATE
1.8 aug 88
of improving single-bit hitting rates in binary tasks since@
Das line data are not being collected (or, If FY86 data isbeing
relied on, it is questionable whether 50 trial is suficient and @ we
will not have the time to run an adequate number of formal trials
in FY 88 to demonstrate improvement.
Specific comment follow:
1.
P. 3, Det Jana - reference to FY86 work in Oby Etask 2 is
not accurate. Mention is made to the F486 effort for the
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 /CIARDP9600788200150017001620 23) und
first time in the
Mij F app 10
---------

Approved, For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001500170016-2
2.
P
3, Section A, (I)+(2) - are the "techniques referred to in (.
the same as those in (2) or are they external vs internal. Please
clarify and specify.
3
p.3, Section A General - multiple objectives are confusing ane
there is no way one could design an experiment of this point
regarding the two secondary objectives since @ the technice
are not defined and b formal base line data has not been
gathered. These secondary objectives should have been
eliminated or more scientifically addressed.
4 . The SOC should have reviewed the " protocol " for this "experimen
5,
04, Section C, Ist bullet - implies a binary task is the
usual protocol. Is this accurate since much most of
the Data being collected appears to be involve multiple #
choices
6. P4, Section C, last para - "bludles to "formal tests" Asingle
bit hitting rates in a binary task force to show improvement
they have to demonstrate improvement compared to like
base line data +/or include sufficient trials over time
to demonstrate this. The clarification of this is critical.
7. 05, Section A - indicates a pl value of L.033, while the
FY87 Mid year Tech Report states the p/ value for the same
data is 4. 624. Also, this paragraph indicates that the
FY86 data was "sensitive" to a putative dedine effect"
what does this phrase mean and where is the coffee to
supportit ?
8.p5, Section E, End para - states "SRI and sponsors COTR
will determine structure of formal test"- "this,"arrange-
you in this document presented to me in mid-august 1988.

5
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001500170016-2
COMMENT.
8. (contil)
I will be happy to input, but see my
comment # 4 above. Also, it may well prove I to
be too late to do a formal test (see my) Introductory
commento and concerno).
9.
7, Section F, and Sentence. Unclear. Perhaps
this should read: " The task was to determine ?
whether ... ETC.
10.
p7, Section F, last Sentence - When you say the
Y" remaining 6.3 trials" are you referring to 63.
of the 81 original binary trials? If the first 18
Twee thrown out, then it would seem that your
total binary trials are just 63 (especially since
the first 18 did not fit your" usual protocol regarder
type of targets)
11.
189 IsA para, Ist Sentence - What are the "specific
and different internal strategies "mentioned. This is
critical information 4, if only Ingo knows the answer
(assuming he knows), Yit's not meaningful to us.
12.
8, Is para, last sentence - What are the "other
two hypothèses " you are referring to ; where are they
so staffed?
SG1J
13
I have also attached the comments mode
agarding this abrunment. They are
also ertical of this work and indicate his
contention that the work in Deroul flawed.
. ..
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001500170016-2
1
:
...
..