## 5 Analysis  
The data collected in response to Questions 7 through 10 can be utilized to compare different approaches to validating autonomous data collection and analysis software. From this, it appears (based on the average of the responses--a metric that is being utilized as a single-number indicator of aggregate preference) that access to or review of the source code would engender the most trust, followed by expert review, testing and comparison on Earth and, finally, the random verification of analysis while the work was ongoing. It is important to note that a combination of these methods might engender even greater trust than a single method alone; collection and analysis of data related to this is a topic for future work. The average value and agreement/no preference/disagreement percentages for these questions are summarized in Table 17.  
Questions 11 through 14 look at areas of a planetary science mission where autonomous control could be incorporated. From the average values it would appear that it would be accepted most readily for data prioritization, followed by scientific finding generation, determination of whether data should be sent or discarded and, finally, the evaluation of relevance to scientific objectives. It is important to note that only the first, data prioritization for transmission, is above the 5 value that serves as the demarcation between agreement and disagreement. Also, the order of acceptance would be different if the percentage of those expressing agreement was used instead of the average response value. This data is summarized in Table 18.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Question** & **Agree** & **No Preference** & **Disagree** & **Average** & **Verification Approach** \\ \hline Question 7 & 74\% & 18\% & 2\% & 6.6 & Review of Source Code \\ Question 8 & 76\% & 12\% & 12\% & 6.5 & Review by Experts \\ Question 9 & 73\% & 15\% & 10\% & 6.4 & Testing and Comparison on Earth \\ Question 10 & 71\% & 18\% & 9\% & 6.3 & Random Verification of Performance \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 17: Summary of respondent preferences for Questions 7 through 10.  
Figure 17: Graph of correlation between years of experience and the statement “As an editor for a journal, I would publish an article with computer-generated findings”.  
Reviewing respondents' answers to Questions 4 and 15, juxtaposed, suggests that consideration of the matter in greater detail may lead to greater acceptance of autonomous data collection and analysis. Question 4 states \"I would trust computer analysis (without human involvement) of planetary science data\" while Question 15 states \"as an editor for a journal, I would publish an article with computer-generated findings\". Clearly these questions are, though not equivalent, of the same vein (as analysis is, of course, used to generate a finding). The responses, indicated in Tables 19 and 20 show an increase in agreement (from 23% to Question 4 to 33% for Question 15) as well as a shift in the average response (from 4.52 to 5.5, notably crossing the no-preference threshold from disagreement to agreement). Further study is required to validate this prospectively interesting finding which suggests that education of members of the planetary science community with regards to autonomous control technology may be critical in increasing its acceptance.