What It Changes
Classical groundwater workflows often treat aquifer-test parameters as inputs to later uncertainty analysis. This work moves the review one step earlier.
The measured object is the drawdown or recovery response. Transmissivity and storage are interpreted through a pathway: Theis, leaky aquifer, lagging Darcy, dual-porosity, numerical inverse model, or another response model. Each pathway carries its own bias, dispersion, identifiability limits, and support scale.
Drawdown, recovery, and temperature are measured. Aquifer and thermal properties are inferred through model pathways. Transformation uncertainty follows the full path from measured signal to parameter to engineering endpoint.
Evidence Boundary
The current TU_Lag evidence ledger supports cautious wording:
- pumping-test transmissivity and storage are inferred parameters produced by an interpretation model;
- the study reviews front-end drawdown-to-parameter transformation uncertainty;
- a 10,000-scenario numerical benchmark provides conditional transformation model factors for four interpretation pathways;
- field cases provide diagnostics, not proof of true aquifer parameters.
The website should not claim that mature groundwater uncertainty methods are absent, nor should it imply that one pathway replaces established hydrogeology.
Why It Matters
Engineering decisions inherit interpretation choices. A fitted parameter can look precise while still carrying transformation error from model form, time window, boundary simplification, and field support.
The collaboration value is concrete: identify where interpretation uncertainty changes allowable pumping, response time, recovery planning, or risk margin.