It's also the origin of the Chomsky hierarchy "a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars."
Pretty neat, eh? Computer languages and a formal working psychological toolkit both have roots in Transformational Grammar.
"Neurolinguistic Programming" is far from "a potent and rigorous" school of anything, it is gobbledygook that has nothing to do with Chomsky's insights into linguistics.
In particular, Chomsky's work focuses on understanding the basic patterns behind language itself as a general human trait, at a very basic level, because that's all that can be studied at the moment. The concepts from Transformational Grammar and Universal Grammar are far too simple to be used in analyzing actual human speech, it would be like trying to use Newton's laws of motion to analyze how athletes run and claiming you discovered something important: pseudo-science at its worst.
NLP arouses the ire of what I call "Capital-S Skeptics". That's why I didn't link to the Wikipedia article on it, as it's been glossed over with cries of "pseudo-science!" by ignorant skeptics so you can't really get any information about NLP from WP except that skeptics are skeptical of it.
I have personal experience of NLP and I can vouch that it is effective (you can change yourself quickly and easily) and rigorous (it develops repeatable algorithms that can be taught to others who can then replicate the results), e.g. the "Phobia Cure" pattern that cures phobias quickly and permanently typically in a single application.
I myself was cured of a terrible depression that was ruining my life in a one-off treatment that took less than ten minutes. Saved my life.
Having known many people who struggle with depression, please allow me to simply consider you a liar on this point at least. It is claims like this that make it obvious that NLP is either culty or snake-oil (or both).
Claiming that you can cure complex diseases with neurological and social and psychological causes in 10 minutes with repeatable algorithms inspired by applying linguistic analysis on the work of 3 therapists is so obviously bunk that I'm wondering if you'll next tell me about this one weird trick if I send you a one-off payment.
I'm not talking about the first amendment to the US constitution here. I am talking about legal codes used to standardize health and safety standards for goods manufactured in different jurisdictions.
Mandatory financial reporting can benefit from automation as well IMO.
You'll also have all sorts of people lobbying for more lax standards claiming that stricter standards will have too much impact on businesses etc.
Financial reporting could almost certainly benefit from more automation. However, even there a lot of the problems happen around what revenue to recognize, how to prevent people from moving money around in fictitious transactions etc.
A legislature should be able to express their intention to apply financial stimulus according to some expression that takes macroeconomic and/or quality of life metrics as input.
Note that what I'm thinking of here is a formal definition that is rigorous enough to be able to apply formal mathematical methods to reason about it.