Imagine you're a fire chief deciding which buildings to evacuate during a wildfire. You don't need a complete blueprint of every building in town — you need to know which buildings are on the fire's path and which exits are blocked. If you can figure out the right evacuation order from just the number of floors, occupancy, and proximity to the fire line, you've made a good decision without ever mapping the plumbing. This paper applies that logic to production networks: you don't need the full input-output table to make the right economic call. The committed claim: economic decisions based on network data (like which sectors or plants to monitor for supply-chain risk) can be fully identified from a strict subset of the network's statistics, even when individual exposures within the network remain unidentified. The paper draws a sharp line between identifying a decision and identifying the network itself — and shows that the first can be achieved at dramatically lower measurement cost than the second. The formal machinery is decision-theoretic. The authors define 'exposure-based decisions' — assignments of monitoring resources based on how exposed each node is to a shock propagating through the network. They then characterize the minimal set of sufficient statistics (aggregate row/column totals, selected bilateral flows) needed so that the optimal decision is the same across ALL networks consistent with those statistics. The key mathematical object is the sharp maximum regret: the worst-case loss you'd suffer if you froze your monitoring design and the true network turned out to be the least favorable one compatible with your released data. Two empirical applications anchor the theory. First, Japan's interregional input-output tables: selecting measurements from the 1995 vintage and benchmarking against the 2005 ground truth. At roughly half the statistics needed for full network disclosure, the chosen monitoring set loses only 0.07 percentage points of average exposure relative to the benchmark optimum. But the sharp maximum regret — the worst case — is 4.83 points. That gap is the paper's sharpest finding: good average performance does NOT guarantee a decision is robust. Second, U.S. coal deliveries around a 2005 Wyoming rail disruption. Here, adding specific shipment-level measurements identifies the optimal set of plants to monitor for inventory risk, even though four monitored plants' individual exposures to the affected coal supply remain unidentified. The ladder question is subtle because this paper doesn't compete against a SOTA algorithm — it reframes how we evaluate network data releases. The closest predecessors are the Leontief input-output tradition and recent work on network identification (Acemoglu, Carvalho, Ozdaglar, Tahbaz-Salehi). The contribution is a formal criterion — decision-relevance — that none of these predecessors provide. Against the naive baseline of 'release everything,' the paper shows you can cut measurement burden roughly in half with negligible average cost but non-trivial worst-case exposure. Integrity is mixed but honest. Both empirical exercises use real data (Japan's official IO tables, U.S. EIA coal shipment records), and the authors are transparent about the gap between average and worst-case performance — they don't hide the 4.83-point regret number. However, the validation is essentially same-team: the authors select the measurement design, choose the benchmark, and evaluate. There's no pre-registration or independent replication. The coal disruption case is a natural experiment, which adds credibility, but the sample is one event. The practical upshot for anyone working in supply-chain risk, statistical disclosure, or crisis monitoring: stop asking 'do we have the full network?' and start asking 'do we have enough to make this specific decision?' The framework gives you a formal way to answer the second question and to quantify exactly how much decision quality you're leaving on the table.
