research-document RFR-6F3F68FC
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Itten Color Contrasts Evidence Registry v1
RFR-6F3F68FC — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Itten Color Contrasts Evidence Registry v1
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Itten Color Contrasts Evidence Registry v1.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active.” Its Evidence registry section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/itten-color-contrasts/evidence-registry/itten-color-evidence-registry-v1.md
- Section:
Evidence registry - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Evidence registry” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “Ratings use A (convergent standards/reviews and replicated foundations), B (credible convergent evidence with material boundaries), C (limited/direct study or indirect transfer), and D (hypothesis/history only). ID Evidence and persistent identifier Supports / contradicts Quality Limits --- --- --- ---: --- EV-ITTEN-0…”
- 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-EVREG-VE-ITTEN-001-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.