integrate submodels into main BTD

[rjhanes]

DUE DATE: CEB Monday, April 13

How to review: Check that model logic and equations match what you developed in your submodel, with caveats that we'll discuss in today's meeting. Parameter names may not be the same, so keep that in mind.

If you find anything that is incorrect, there are two options. If it's something simple you can change in a single commit (like replacing one parameter for another), fix it yourself and push changes to integratesubmodels. For all other changes, create an issue describing in as much detail as possible what's happening, what should be happening, and some steps to take that you think would correct it, and assign Rebecca.

Review assignments go by model view and are as follows:

Lauren

• [x] Investor Decisions

Anthony

• [x] Market Share - note there are several connections to other views including Price Models, Indicators and Developer Decisions, cover those as well
• [x] Price Models - just the supply to demand ratio price impact (find a source or justification for the graphical function) on the Bioproduct Selling Price and the price response behavior in the Incumbent Product Price Model (it connects to at least one other view)

Brian

• [x] Investor Decisions
• [x] Investor Computations
• [x] Market Share - Brian
• [x] Idealized Forecast - just the idealized internal NPV calculation and how it's used in Investor Decisions
• [x] All views: Look for input parameters that aren't color-coded brown and correct as needed

Rebecca

• [x] Development Stages
• [x] Final review before completing the pull request

[bwbush]

@rjhanes, regarding my review of idealized NPV and idealized internal NPV, the equations are fine except that it approximates idealized regulatory costs by an analytic integration to compute their present value. For uniformity of approach, we could replace that analytic integration with the expected costs by forecast year, which would mean we'd have to add the [forecast year] subscript to idealized regulatory costs, but this will make almost no difference numerically. Instead, I'm renaming idealized regulatory costs to idealized regulatory cost PV, to make the approach clearer.

@rjhanes and @Lauren-Sittler, I see two issues with internal investor decision:

1. Why is completing stages multiplying both sides of the inequality?
2. value threshold contains the future revenues discounted to present, but idealized internal NPV contains both the costs and the revenues discounted to the present, but discounted using the PV formula instead of the CRF formula. I think we need to delete the revenues from the right-hand side of the equation so that we are comparing probability-adjusted revenue on the left to the expected costs on the right, but using the same discounting formula on both sides.

[Lauren-Sittler]

The "probability of internal project success" calculation also has an error. It has a limit of 0.4. By the end of the project the probability of success should be 1 or nearly 1 - it has succeeded.

Update - I found the error. "Number of stages to complete" was rounding up an integer. "Stages completed" stopped at 12 and never reached the final "13th" stage. We can either round down for the initial number of stages or alter the "Stages Completed" to make sure it reaches the last stage.

[bwbush]

@rjhanes and @Lauren-Sittler, I'm going to propose a slight reformulation of internal investor decision to address my previous comment.

[rjhanes]

To discuss: remove completing stages or keep They're included such that a decision can only be made (internal investor decision = 1) only at the end of each stage, which is when the next funding allotment is provided. Fixed

[rjhanes]

To discuss: internal capital recovery factor isn't needed? NO, not needed

[rjhanes]

All changes from branch bwbreview should now be integrated with a minimum of line ending shenanigans