{"illustrative":true,"generatedAt":"2026-09-18T14:59:29.122Z","data":[{"id":"WDW-001","title":"SMS reminder for PHC appointments","missionSlug":"health","hypothesis":"Automated SMS reminders would reduce missed appointments and waiting-time variance.","expectedOutcome":"Missed appointments down 20% in 25 PHCs.","intervention":"Bulk SMS 24h before scheduled visit in local language.","costCr":0.6,"actualResult":"Missed appointments fell 3% (not statistically significant). Waiting-time variance unchanged.","whyItFailed":"Most PHC visits are walk-in; scheduled appointments were a small minority. The intervention targeted a problem that barely existed at the facility level.","evidence":[{"text":"Facility logs from 25 PHCs, 6 months, compared with 25 control PHCs.","evidenceClass":"PRIMARY_GOVERNMENT_DATA"},{"text":"Labs evaluation memo, peer reviewed.","evidenceClass":"EXPERT_ANALYSIS"}],"lessons":["Validate that the problem exists at the point of intervention before building the fix.","Cheap pilots are valuable precisely because they can fail cheaply."],"decision":"STOPPED","decisionDate":"Y1 Q2 (sample)","illustrative":true},{"id":"WDW-002","title":"Tablet-based learning app, Grade 3 (single-district pilot)","missionSlug":"education-skills","hypothesis":"Adaptive learning software would raise reading scores faster than teacher-led remediation.","expectedOutcome":"0.2 standard deviation gain in reading in one academic year.","intervention":"Tablets and adaptive app in 40 schools; 40 comparison schools received teacher-led remediation.","costCr":2.1,"actualResult":"No significant difference versus teacher-led remediation; device downtime averaged 30% of school days.","whyItFailed":"Device maintenance and connectivity were underestimated; teachers used the app as a substitute rather than a supplement.","evidence":[{"text":"Independent assessment of 3,200 children at baseline and endline.","evidenceClass":"INDEPENDENT_STUDY"}],"lessons":["Technology pilots must budget for maintenance as a first-class cost.","Compare against the best cheap alternative, not against doing nothing."],"decision":"REDESIGNED","decisionDate":"Y1 Q2 (sample)","illustrative":true},{"id":"WDW-003","title":"Recharge-structure count as a groundwater KPI","missionSlug":"climate-energy-water","hypothesis":"Counting recharge structures built would track groundwater improvement.","expectedOutcome":"Structures built would correlate with water-table recovery.","intervention":"KPI adopted for first two quarters of PS-014.","costCr":0,"actualResult":"Structure counts rose; water-table readings showed no relationship because most structures were sited without hydrogeological assessment.","whyItFailed":"Output measured instead of outcome. The KPI incentivised construction, not recharge.","evidence":[{"text":"Piezometer readings vs. structure inventory across 8 blocks.","evidenceClass":"PRIMARY_GOVERNMENT_DATA"}],"lessons":["Never adopt an output KPI as a proxy for an outcome without evidence of correlation.","Site selection needs hydrogeology, not just budget."],"decision":"REPLACED","decisionDate":"Y1 Q3 (sample)","illustrative":true}]}