Next evidence: the questions that change the estimate

The public directory release contains 597 listings and 589 provisional browsing groups. It is not a deduplicated city frame. The undated market directory needs individual scope screening; the undated pottery page must not be labeled a current-year exhibitor census. The guild directory contains shared and organizational booths. Same-name groups need identity review; shared websites can represent multiple people.

Past Lives' homepage and membership page differ about retail availability, and its facility-size statements vary. Membership and commission counters lack a reporting period. We do not use those counters for annual output or income estimates. Other undated operator membership statements receive the same treatment.

The historic Portland Made survey includes sectors outside this article and uses a membership sample. Its large-firm revenue addition must not become an average maker business. The 2018 urban-manufacturing study includes a much broader production universe. Both are useful for methods and mechanisms, not current maker totals.

Census API probes returned a missing-key HTML page, even with HTTP 200. The official NES bulk ZIP supplied the actual county observations. Attempts to obtain a new city detailed-occupation table did not yield usable data. No city occupation count is claimed. BLS documentation and Bullseye's source page were readable through web retrieval but some direct archive fetches failed; the lockfile records failures. Numerical QCEW source files were successfully archived.

Raw HTML, PDF, and ZIP sources are stored in gitignored working storage, pinned by hashes. A hash identifies the evidence vintage but cannot restore a removed webpage. The archive script refuses silent replacement. Existing broader arts studies are retained in the research archive for context, not used as maker totals.

Subject: Existing city-boundary data for physical production in Portland

Portland Civic Lab is examining physical art, craft, small fabrication, furniture, ceramics, textiles, jewelry, printmaking, hardware prototypes, and creative repair. We have extracted Multnomah County QCEW for 2019, 2023, and 2025. The Urban Manufacturing Alliance's 2018 Portland study describes obtaining city and district QCEW through the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

Are existing city-boundary tabulations available for private-sector establishments, annual-average employment, payroll, and average annual pay for NAICS 327110, 337122, 337212, 339910, 339992, 332323, 337121, 323113, 315, 316, and 811420, alongside the matching all-private total? Please retain suppression flags and explain boundary handling across counties, industry-code revisions, and whether small or custom producers can be distinguished from larger industrial establishments.

Separately, which sources identify self-employed craft workers or physical artists, and do they describe residence or workplace? We seek existing aggregates, not identifiable taxpayer or employer records. OED data catalog · 2018 study

Subject: Anonymized evidence on producer sales and participation

We are researching Portland's physical maker economy. Could you identify existing records for one complete event year showing the number of unique participating producers, sales distributions, total sales, fees, and production geography in aggregate? Please distinguish individuals, businesses, shared booths, and repeat appearances.

For Ceramic Showcase, the published central sales system may make an anonymized distribution possible without asking individual artists to disclose finances publicly. We would welcome separate totals for producers working inside Portland, elsewhere in the region, and locations unknown. We do not seek names linked to financial records. Please describe missing sales, refunds, reporting dates, and coverage limits. OPA rules

Subject: Existing maker-business and production-space evidence

We are documenting physical production inside Portland, including small independent and home-based producers. Please identify existing maker/manufacturer directories, workspace inventories, business surveys, closure and relocation records, and updates to the 2015 Portland Made and 2018 urban-manufacturing research.

Which datasets distinguish production sites from headquarters or storefronts? Can they separate solo enterprises, employer firms, and unpaid participation? Please include geographic definitions, reference periods, update schedules, source coverage, and confidentiality constraints. Any existing non-identifying business-registration or tax aggregates would also help test directory coverage; registration alone will not be treated as active operation. Prosper Portland · Our Creative Future

Pilot the operator questions with three facilities and the maker questions with five makers, including an unaffiliated home producer and someone who has closed or relocated. Record comprehension and missing-response problems; revise the instruments before wider recruitment. Then design the probability audit of the directory frame separately from the open community survey. The latter describes respondents and discovers omissions; it does not supply a citywide prevalence estimate by itself. See the community research kit and estimation model.