disguises how innovation effects economic growth.

Professional Evidence proves that innovation funnels that growth from STEM,

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

•Professional Evidence still needs Peer Review. How does academe respond?  Response works both ways. Academic economists need scrutiny from those who practice innovation professionally. Our knowledge massively leads theirs on innovation. •Your professional measure of innovation. Isn't it just price divided by cost?  No.That would not capture the success of improved products and processes. Measuring the way they increase 'quality' is essential, but found nowhere in Economics. The answer requires physical quantity to be an independent variable. That capability was abandoned by Economics a century ago, page 76. I have restored it to pages 11 to 13. Price plotted against quantity is a demand curve from which 'quality' can now be enumerated. •Why is it just performance (or 'quality') divided by unit cost then?  Because that captures the outcomes from all innovation practice, including mine, is consistent with the best knowledge available from product success studies, and explains the economics of the innovation funnel precisely, pages 41 to 43. That funnel controls creative destruction at the origin of economic growth, where four new laws - only discoverable from innovation practice - govern its processes. •But you don't consider new High-tech evidence,  Data from 1951 to 2001 contains plenty of high-tech. Supercomputing is considered on pages 59 & 72. Much has happened since then. The Smartphone is an entity at the forefront of today's digital economy. Its treatment needs foundation in evidence. •National Accounting cannot be changed,  But it can be improved. National Accounting views innovation as an affect that adds output to the economy. But it's an input that actualizes GDP. This lapse corrupts productivity and leaves National Accounting marred for want of innovation enumerated from its STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) iDe foundation. •Prices already take care of quality change due to innovation?  No. You are referring to hedonic methodology. Its limitations were already apparent in 1971 but have never been adequately addressed. Zvi Griliches used wheelbase as an auto attribute. No-one goes to a dealer to buy a length. Such methods may or may not work. A contemporary deviation for the Smartphone highlights this deficiency, page 33, Figures 27a-d. Hedonic methods do not sum quality change as they eliminate it, making them systemically incapable of enumerating innovation. New evidence can.