Evidence Repetition Across Chapters

The Question

Several key pieces of evidence — particularly the Alaska Permanent Fund, GiveDirectly Kenya trial, and the Linux/Wikipedia voluntary creation examples — appear across multiple chapters. Some repetition serves the argument (each chapter uses the evidence from a different angle). But some may simply retread ground the reader has already covered.

What Needs Investigation

1. For each repeated piece of evidence: does the new citation add a genuinely new perspective, or does it restate what an earlier chapter already established?
2. Could some later citations be replaced with a brief callback ("as we saw in Chapter 2") rather than a full re-explanation?
3. Are there gaps where different evidence could serve the same function, broadening the book's empirical base rather than deepening the same few examples?

Potential Resolution

An audit of each evidence page's "chapters used" field would reveal the concentration. The evidence pages already flag over-reliance risk — those flags should drive specific editorial decisions about which citations to keep, shorten, or replace.