The Supreme Court does not “do” theory: to have a case heard by the court you need to demonstrate you have been injured by the application of a law, as in the case when Massachusetts sued the Environment Protection Agency for failing to regulate CO2. Massachusettes had the case heard by arguing increased CO2 was leading to sea-level changes that were already causing damage. Massachusetts won.
The casing point of this example is that the Supreme Court focuses on actions, and the ideas or theories are developed in the context of those actions.
A similar approach could be considered the same for TEX. TEX is not necessarily about advancing or exploring the theory of solutions-oriented science, per se, but rather about advancing the art of doing solutions-oriented science. If TEX as a program does contribute to the theory, it is only through the lessons learned on the advancement of solutions-oriented projects and initiatives.
