Actually, I was responding to the GP stating a hypothesis.

But my question would be this: Are your political sponsors (a number of rungs up) invested in your work? Are they willing to take flak for your team (ie. take personal career risk) when (yes, when) things go wrong and provide the cover to help you turn things around, or are they more likely to throw the cocky Google-kids under the bus and declare "experiment failed" the second things turn a bit sour, and return to business as usual?

Now, answer the same question again, but 18 months from now, on the hypothetical that the next president isn't going to have this much on the agenda. What happens when heading the USDS doesn't mean briefing the president in the oval, but rather briefing a junior staffer to an undersecretary of the treasury?

Getting positive answers to all those is what real change looks like.

From my perspective as a former federal government employee, it seems more realistic than cynical. I agree that your second question would be a way to test this perception against reality.

Tech reform begins with the NSA