There's no such thing as binary instrument or binary treatment. Both instrument and treatment are continuums. Kirk, erase this sexist thread now!
Counting Defiers  Amanda E. Kowalski

Why didn't she try simulating data and checking to make sure her algorithm could recover the correct parameters? This would take, like, half an hour given what she must have already coded. If her algorithm works, such an exercise would demonstrate as much, and possibly help overcome the other glaring omission from the paper: why no attempt at an explanation of the intuition?
The acknowledgements suggest the paper was put up as an NBER wp without ever being presented, even internally, and without comments from anyone. The paper should be withdrawn, and this should act as a lesson for all of us: the economics culture of circulating work prior to publication really is beneficial, and the NBER wp series  which is in effect a peerreviewed publication with no peerreview  should be overhauled or simply abandoned.

Well written paper. I'd need to go through her Least Squares methodology to see if it makes more sense.
The newest version omits her claim about optimization software. She seems like a productive person working on important stuff.This is how mathematical crankery succeeds. "It seems well written". "It seems important". "This crank seems productive".
The profession is getting less and less well equipped to detect mathematical cranks.

Well written paper. I'd need to go through her Least Squares methodology to see if it makes more sense.
The newest version omits her claim about optimization software. She seems like a productive person working on important stuff.How exactly is the scenario a case of independent binomial random variables?
And how exactly did she arrive to the results? Does she share any code?

Well written paper. I'd need to go through her Least Squares methodology to see if it makes more sense.
The newest version omits her claim about optimization software. She seems like a productive person working on important stuff.This is how mathematical crankery succeeds. "It seems well written". "It seems important". "This crank seems productive".
The profession is getting less and less well equipped to detect mathematical cranks.I'd imagine that's the task of the referees and the followup literature building on her work. It will not be me, but it's neither clear to me what assumptions she makes to identify defiers nor why people here accuse her of intellectual fraud.

Well written paper. I'd need to go through her Least Squares methodology to see if it makes more sense.
The newest version omits her claim about optimization software. She seems like a productive person working on important stuff.This is how mathematical crankery succeeds. "It seems well written". "It seems important". "This crank seems productive".
The profession is getting less and less well equipped to detect mathematical cranks.I'd imagine that's the task of the referees and the followup literature building on her work. It will not be me, but it's neither clear to me what assumptions she makes to identify defiers nor why people here accuse her of intellectual fraud.
That’s because you are dumb. This thread has a very high quality discussion of why she is wrong. If you can’t understand it, don’t comment.