The number one man can be wrong. Not sometimes wrong in a philosophical, "we're all human" kind of way. Wrong in a specific, definable, mechanistic way — and more importantly, wrong in a way that has a clean, non-negotiable solution when applied evenly across multiple variables we want dominion over.

I've been sitting on this one for a while, so it feels good to get it off my chest.

For many in the profession of arms, the term "Qualification" may as well be a four-letter word, and based on an observational study I've been conducting for 20-plus years, most of them are not wrong. The qualification they are subjected to is either too easy, too hard, comes with too much logistical strain, is too short, is too long, uses too much ammo, doesn't use enough ammo, emphasizes the wrong skills, techniques, or tactics….etc, etc, etc, until the entire topic becomes so mired in minutiae that getting any two people to agree on "what it should be" becomes the equivalent of an emotional one-rep max.

How should we even approach the problem of developing a qualification? Before we even begin the arguments over what techniques, what distances, what times, what target size, how much ammo, etc. — we first MUST understand the foundationalist approach to the problem that a given qualification is even trying to solve. Plotting an organizational skill level across many individuals and reading the distribution that results.