You've got to evaluate the entire process to really assess the "inefficiencies". I haven't read the actual report, but this article is really poor at giving me

You've got to evaluate the entire process to really assess the "inefficiencies". I haven't read the actual report, but this article is really poor at giving me the right set of information. Did the program deliver on its stated goals? Was the outcome an overall net positive? How positive was the outcome? How did the errors or fraud contribute against those goals? How costly are the counter measures? Are they even worth putting in place? How effective do we predict they'd be? How confident are we that they'd even work? How much delays would have resulted from putting them in place? Etc. I like to start at least with the question: Was it a net positive? At the very least if it was, then it was a better decision then doing nothing. Now you can dig into the details and retrospect to learn how it could be done next time in an even more effective manner.