Date: 2026-08-03. Status: v0 evidence-mapping, not the formal scorecard — §14.2's method (pre-authored anchored scales, cited cells, double scoring, multi-objective weightings) still applies to the formal pass. This maps the session's evidence onto the architectures to establish which are strengthened, weakened, or reshaped.
What the evidence did to each architecture
| # | Architecture | Session evidence effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | CCDF supercharge | Reshaped: 2024 CCDF rule already consumed part of the reform agenda (ws06); inherits the non-participation problem CBO scores as base case |
| 2 | Medicaid-model entitlement | Weakened: Germany shows enforceable entitlements produce litigation + compensation, not slots (ws15); Byrd exposure on conditions confirmed by ARP minimum-wage strike (ws11) |
| 3 | Head Start model, scaled | Strengthened: standards live inside a federal spending program — the most Byrd-defensible home for quality (ws11); bypasses the holdout-state problem CBO treats as base case (ws06); NHSA is design-contingent, not hostile (ws13) |
| 4 | K–12 extension | Strengthened for school-age: red-state pre-K durability via school-funding formulas (OK's route, ws15/Phase 0); school-age is 64% of the population and unaddressed by every cost estimate (ws02/ws03) |
| 5 | Demand-side allowance | Weakened: Australia's fees outran subsidies (ws15); pass-through confirmed instrument-dependent — demand-side carries the inflation risk (ws09); Netherlands defines the clawback catastrophe case (ws06/ws15). Nuance: ~29% chain occupancy slack gives short-run absorption room in served markets (ws12) |
| 6 | Supply-first build-out | Strengthened — the session's biggest winner: ARPA stabilization is measured proof supply-side operating grants suppress prices and hold supply, and the cliff measured what removal does (ws09); Canada/Quebec show money-before-workforce fails (ws15); DC shows wage funding fixes retention fast (ws04) |
| 7 | Social-insurance fund | Strengthened on durability: DC's annual survival fights vs. dedicated-revenue programs (ws04/ws10); recession stress test still pending |
| 8 | Public option | Moderately strengthened: chains rationalizing at market rates confirms rate-participation risk for any purchased-capacity design (ws12); H14.4's delivery-reliability argument gains evidence |
| 9 | Federal fallback ladder | Strengthened: CBO scoring non-participation as base case makes the fallback the difference between a national and a blue-state program (ws06) |
| 10 | Tri-Share federalized | Weakened: $14M cumulative statewide savings ≈ pilot scale after 4 years; replicating across states but not scaling within them (ws12, H12.4) |
| 11 | Caregiver-choice allowance | Strengthened on fit: under-3s' modal arrangement is unpaid individual care (ws08) — this is the only architecture matching revealed 0–3 preference; Nordic maternal-employment cost still to be weighed |
| — | Cash comparator | Sharpened: near-poor (100–200% FPL) bear the worst cost burdens (ws08) — cash relieves burden there without touching supply; the comparison the report must run |
Emerging synthesis (to be tested by the formal scorecard)
H14.2 (segmented beats uniform) is winning on evidence. The session's findings sort cleanly by age band:
- School-age (5–12, 64% of children): K–12 extension via school-funding formulas — durable in red states, cheapest capacity, absent from every rival's cost baseline
- Preschool (3–4): mixed delivery under a Head-Start-style or fallback-laddered federal program — where existing infrastructure, coalition consensus (Unifying Framework), and Byrd-defensible spending-program standards align
- Infant/toddler (0–2): the hard segment — revealed preference favors home-based settings; supply economics are worst; a blend of supply-first (networked FCC + compensation funding) and caregiver-choice allowance matches the evidence better than any center-led design
H14.1 (no single architecture wins both feasibility and constraint relief) stands — but the Byrd refinement (ws11: finance, don't mandate) plus the supply-first evidence (ws09) yields a sharper version: the procedurally feasible and effective core is money that funds supply and compensation, with standards carried inside federal spending programs rather than as market mandates.