The major concerns underlying my research include (1).

(1)　a. 　How can we try to ensure and measure progress in what we do in generative grammar?
　　b. 　How can we tell whether or not given intuitions of ours are likely to be a reflection of the Computational System?

The absence of the concern in (1b) in much of the field seems to have resulted in the state of affairs depicted in (2a) and remarks such as (2b).

(2)　a.　Alleged generalizations that have long been shown to be invalid keep on being used in theoretical discussion.
　　b.　"Okay, you have provided some examples that go against the generalization I have proposed/adopted. But what is your alternative account of the contrast that I have been discussing? I have an account but you do not. I would give up my account only if you provided an alternative account of the contrast that I have been discussing, which, as I noted, is shared by at least some native speakers of the language under discussion."

Not every observation qualifies as something that must be accounted for by a theory about the Computational System; it must first be demonstrated that it is most likely a reflection of the Computational System. As noted in [29073], to do so would require the recognition of the significance of negative predictions insofar as the research in question is aimed at demonstrating the existence of and discovering the properties of the Computational System.