research-document RFR-579B9B3A
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Albert Munsell vs. Modern Perceptual Color Spaces
RFR-579B9B3A — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Albert Munsell vs. Modern Perceptual Color Spaces
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Albert Munsell vs. Modern Perceptual Color Spaces.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “Research Execution Package.” Its KD-003 — A color space is not a color appearance model section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/project-atlas/research-note/rp-atlas-color-004-munsell-vs-modern-perceptual-color-spaces.md
- Section:
KD-003 — A color space is not a color appearance model - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “KD-003 — A color space is not a color appearance model” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “Coordinate organization and viewing-condition prediction are separate capabilities.”
- Reason this opportunity exists: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Unknowns
- How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Dependencies
Suggested REP and methodology
- Suggested REP:
REP-ALBERT-MUNSELL-VS-MODERN-PERCEPT-BENCHMARK - Methodology: Curate representative cases, blind ground truth where possible, define baselines and uncertainty-aware metrics, and run reproducible benchmark evaluations.
- Expected outputs: Versioned benchmark, baseline implementations, scoring harness, datasheet, and adoption decision rule.
- Success criteria: Independent teams can reproduce scores and the benchmark discriminates meaningful quality differences without rewarding proxy gaming.
- Recommended agent:
research-engineering-agent - Estimated effort: Medium
- Expected knowledge gained: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Evaluation
| Dimension | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Knowledge gain | 4 |
| Potential impact | 4 |
| Cross-project reuse | 5 |
| Scientific importance | 5 |
| Dependency cost | 5 |
| Implementation difficulty | 3 |
| Frontier score | 392 |
Confidence in this opportunity: moderate. Status: Open.