Pick a budget and a health-effects anchor. See which portfolio still wins.

The analyses answer two different questions over two different horizons. The first-year screen asks whether one year of monetized health benefit covers the upfront program cost. The 30-year decision analysis asks which portfolio has the best discounted value and remains preferable under uncertainty. Portfolio D is unfavorable in the first-year screen but becomes the regret-minimizing choice over the 30-year decision horizon. Those are different questions, not competing versions of the same number. The long-horizon result was then tested across six uncertainty axes and 114,688 uncertainty draws. Switch to the Krewski 2009 or Di 2017 anchors and some cells gray out — we don’t disaggregate per-portfolio net benefit at those anchors. What’s available is shown; nothing is fabricated.

Showing the multi-pollutant posterior from Investigation 6-3 (HR 1.28, β=0.02439). Krewski 2009 and Di 2017 per-portfolio NB is not disaggregated in the cascade — select them to see what data exists.

First-year screen Immediate affordability Mean NB and P(NB>0), sourced from Investigations 15/23.

30-year decision Discounted portfolio value P(optimal) and Sobol P(NPV>0), sourced from Investigations 44/55.

Loading portfolio data…

First-year columns are a one-year benefit-versus-upfront-cost screen. The 30-year columns apply discounted recurring benefits. Use the horizon that matches the decision; do not compare their probability values as though they came from one model run.

What the numbers do and do not show

The runner-up (Portfolio Q_nsga_2, the NSGA-II Pareto dominator) wins five of five robustness lenses, but its real-world deaths-avoided verdict is AMBIGUOUS. Under the Di health-effects anchor it delivers 267 deaths/yr (below our confidence threshold); under Krewski it delivers 895 (passes). Indoor air quality dose-response uncertainty spans 3.4×, so the call depends on which anchor you trust. Until that’s resolved, the conservative fallback is the zero-cost Portfolio A (the free-lunch baseline).
Portfolio D (the $4 B all-in option) is the regret-minimizing choice under our multi-pollutant health-effects estimate. P(optimal) = 1.000 across 8,192 quasi-Monte Carlo draws. It keeps a positive net benefit in 99.99% of 114,688 broader Sobol draws across six uncertainty axes. It wasn’t evaluated in the same robustness ladder as the runner-up — that ladder was built on a different portfolio set.
The health-effects anchor matters enormously. Under our multi-pollutant posterior (HR 1.28), every lens points to either Portfolio D or the runner-up Q_nsga_2. Under the Krewski 2009 (HR 1.06) or Di 2017 (HR 1.07) anchors, we don’t disaggregate per-portfolio net benefit at the same resolution — those cells show “—”, not invented numbers.
At the smaller $300 M budget the winner changes. At that scale the regret-minimizing choice is Q3-B (cooking-stove retrofits with the free-lunch baseline), not Portfolio D. Broader portfolios win at larger budgets because more sectors are affordable; concentrated, high-marginal-value interventions win at small budgets.
Sobol stress test fine print. The full 114,688-draw stress test was only run on Portfolio D and Portfolio A. Portfolio A is positive in 100% of draws (it costs nothing, so it can’t go negative); Portfolio D is positive in 99.99%. No other portfolio was tested at this resolution.
Numbers come from the 57-investigation cascade.