The Igusa-Waldhausen paper (roughly) entitled,

The expansion space model for $Q(X_+)$

which is supposed to give a very different proof of the splitting $A(X) = Q(X_+) \times \text{Wh}^{\text{diff}}(X)$ that based on a description of $Q(X_+)$ as the moduli space of finite relative cell complexes over $X$.

The Igusa-Waldhausen paper (roughly) entitled,

The expansion space model for $Q(X_+)$

which is supposed to give a very different proof of the splitting $A(X) = Q(X_+) \times \text{Wh}^{\text{diff}}(X)$ that is based on a description of $Q(X_+)$ as the moduli space of finite relative cell complexes over $X$.

The Igusa-Waldhausen paper (roughly) entitled,

"The expansion space model for $Q(X_+)$"

which is supposed to give a very different proof of the splitting $A(X) = Q(X_+) \times \text{Wh}^{\text{diff}}(X)$ based on a description of $A(X)$ has the "moduli space of finite relative cell complexes over $X$."Blockquote

The Igusa-Waldhausen paper (roughly) entitled,

The expansion space model for $Q(X_+)$

which is supposed to give a very different proof of the splitting $A(X) = Q(X_+) \times \text{Wh}^{\text{diff}}(X)$ that based on a description of $Q(X_+)$ as the moduli space of finite relative cell complexes over $X$.