This paper examines whether two plausible baseline-near repair strategies—packaging elasticity and subject aggregation—can materially improve the inherited 2005 Civil Engineering curriculum at FACET-UNT. Drawing on the results of Campaign 005 and Campaign 006, it tests whether increasing institutional slack or reducing subject-level granularity can move the baseline into a meaningfully stronger performance regime without requiring deeper redesign. The findings are consistently negative. Relaxing packaging constraints produces no material change in confidence-adjusted return, winner stability, claim class, or comparative standing. Subject aggregation likewise yields only negligible or slightly negative effects, with no meaningful change in rank order or evaluative position. Taken together, the results show that the inherited baseline is largely insensitive to both increased packaging slack and reduced formal granularity. The paper’s contribution is a disciplined negative result with structural meaning. It shows that two intuitively plausible and institutionally attractive repair levers fail to alter the evaluative regime of the inherited curriculum in any material way. The most plausible interpretation is that the dominant constraint lies deeper, in the persistence of serial dependency, long critical paths, and limited effective branching.
Hugo Roger Paz (Mon,) studied this question.