-   Collecting different data types. Validation of existing models and motivating development of more realistic ones depends on more than just saturated zone head data. Other data types include vadose zone water content [@meyer1962], and hydrogeophysical data like microgravity [@damiata2006] or streaming potentials [@malama2009].

-   Moving water table position. All solutions since @boulton1954a assume the water table is fixed horizontal $\xi(r,t)=h_0$ during the entire test, even close to the pumping well where large drawdown is often observed. Iterative numerical solutions can accommodate this, but this has not been included in an analytical solution.

-   Physically realistic partial penetration. Well test solutions suffer from the complication related to the unknown distribution of flux across the well screen. Commonly, the flux distribution is simply assumed constant, but it is known that flux will be higher near the ends of the screened interval that are not coincident with the aquifer boundaries.

-   Dynamic water table boundary condition. A large increase in complexity comes from explicitly including unsaturated flow in unconfined solutions. The kinematic boundary condition expresses mass conservation due to water table decline. Including an analogous dynamic boundary condition based on a force balance (capillarity vs. gravity) may include sufficient effects of unsaturated 