Nope. Plain flat out wrong. While statistical methods may be deployed where appropriate, they are not required and often not used at all.
Unless you are willing to define the question "Does it work or not?" as "statistical methods". I have implemented plenty of ISO systems where even simple maths was not necessary to attain independent accreditation and certification.
I got diploma in Israel - "Quality assurance".
So I know what it mean practically well enough.
If you had found the defect in one detail you have to check not 1 from 100 details but 1 from 10 details or even every one.
If you had found and prooved the criminal person in definite political group you have to check all members of this group or take all group out of power.
Unfortunately we see criminals almost in every political party and we continue to provide these parties by political power.
"New Saturday" will give all branches and all levels of state power to professionally certificated candidates according lottery and only on 1 cadence.
I will establish the systems of social quality assurance in every points were it posible.
What? You already claimed anonymity was verboten. Has that changed? Or is it simply applied when it suits you? What experts? What authors? If they are as you claim, anonymous how can you tell whether they are honest or dishonest? Whether they actually are experts or crackpots? Whether they are genuine "authors" or just making stuff up?
Our problem that were we need to use anonymity we don't use it and were anonymity need not we use it.
For example the wine taster has to do it blindfolded and not see the beautiful bottles.
On concert orchestra, singers and musicians should be turned back to the audience, which would affect the quality of the music and voices rather than false mimic staging.
The judge, the defendants, advocates, prosecutors, jurors must to be in anonymous communication.
Only in this way we can achieve the real justice.
But if somebody want to look on my body or in my account he has no right to do it anonymous.
That is a word salad from which no sensible meaning can be derived. Please rephrase in some more meaningful way. Perhaps autocorrect caused an issue, as I cannot see how accordions fit into your scheme. If you want to ban accordians then I am all with you (thanks, Pterry).
Your problem that you are only skeptic and not constructive creator of project.
You can make critic of my inventions only if you replace them by your inventions that more effective.
As minimum I hope you will give constructive proposals to improve something in my projects.
