Accuracy, Feedback, and Continuous Improvement
How are assessment errors addressed?
Intratec relies for the vast majority of its data on public official sources — with private sources and producers' data used only with permission from the rights holders, and surveys only in very exceptional circumstances — and processes it through impartial, auditable methods. Errors are addressed through continuous model reviews and ongoing methodology improvements, and a formal assessment-complaint process is available to subscribers who wish to question a figure. The correction process covers clerical and typographical mistakes, calculation errors, technical glitches, and methodology misapplication, as well as retroactive adjustments when new information becomes available or a model is enhanced. Any resulting changes are reported each month in the publicly available Intratec Release Notes.
How is model accuracy tracked?
Accuracy is evaluated as part of modeling itself, and the data lifecycle provides a built-in back-test. Every forecast and every preliminary figure is eventually confronted with the final official value once it arrives — the natural consequence of the Preliminary-to-Final cycle, in which model estimates are replaced by verified statistics. Comparing what the models predicted with what the official sources later reported shows directly how well each model performs.
Deviations between modeled and final values are flagged for investigation: analysts trace the cause — from erroneous data entry to market changes the model has not yet accounted for — and the model is recalibrated, improved, or replaced when it no longer reflects conditions. Insights from these investigations are fed back into the models — particularly during the scheduled quarterly model reviews — so accuracy and reliability improve over time. No numeric track record, error rates, or accuracy metrics are published.
How does subscriber feedback drive improvement?
Subscriber feedback enters the methodology in two ways. Individually, a formal assessment-complaint process is available to subscribers who wish to question a published figure; a resolved complaint can prompt an adjustment to the affected value. Collectively, subscriber feedback is one of the standing criteria considered in methodology reviews — alongside changes in raw data and modeling enhancements — including the clarification and simplification of the methodology documents themselves. Every resulting change is documented in the monthly, publicly available Intratec Release Notes, so the path from feedback to revision remains traceable.
How often is the methodology reviewed?
Methodologies are reviewed continuously, with a formal review of all methodologies and methodology documents at least annually. Three kinds of findings can justify changes after a review: alterations in the raw data used for the calculations, modifications to the calculation methodology such as modeling enhancements, and clarification or simplification of the methodology documents based on subscriber feedback.
Changes resulting from a review are announced to customers in advance, before they take effect, together with the duration of the transition period, and are documented in the monthly Intratec Release Notes. Before a new or revised method takes effect, it is run through a period of shadow testing — operated alongside the current method so its behavior can be confirmed ahead of official release.