There are a large number of accounts about rapidly declining costs of batteries with potentially transformative effects, but these accounts often are not based on detailed design and technical information. Using a method ideally suited for that purpose, we find that when experts are free to assume any battery pack design, a majority of the cost estimates are consistent with the ranges reported in the literature, although the range is notably large. However, we also find that 55% of relevant experts' component-level cost projections are inconsistent with their total pack-level projections, and 55% of relevant experts' elicited cost projections are inconsistent with the cost projections generated by putting their design-and process-level assumptions into our process based cost model (PBCM). These results suggest a need for better understanding of the technical assumptions driving popular consensus regarding future costs. Approaches focusing on technological details first, followed by non-aggregated and systemic cost estimates while keeping the experts aware of any discrepancies, should they arise, may result in more accurate forecasts.