Somewhat. To me there are 2 major questions.

1. Is SPC the right analogy. Is the analogy of special cause and common cause variance correct?

I've discussed this with some friends, and AS AN ANALOGY it can be applied. A friend explained it well. But it is not a great analogy IMHO because we don't know what the system defined by the strategy well enough to define what is and isn't common cause.

2. The WWHTBT choices are the basis for things we'd probably want to measure. They're as good as anything else. But they are hypotheses. So while we can we put some measures against them, we have to keep in mind that we do not have certainly or even in some cases high confidence in them.

We are postulating WWHTBT and then tracking them (I hope). But the main point that Martin makes, that is critical is that we should do this explicitly in advance. That thought process is a key part of defining the strategy. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking IMHO.