research-document RFR-75DC0431

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Beautiful Digital Experiences Hypothesis Registry

RFR-75DC0431 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Beautiful Digital Experiences Hypothesis Registry

Research opportunity

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Beautiful Digital Experiences Hypothesis Registry.”

Background

The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active.” Its Status vocabulary section provides the immediate evidence boundary.

Evidence trace

  • Origin document: content/projects/beautiful-digital-experiences/hypothesis-registry/beautiful-digital-experiences-hypothesis-registry-v0-1.md
  • Section: Status vocabulary
  • Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Status vocabulary” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
  • Supporting evidence excerpt: “- Initialized: claim is specified but not adequately tested. - Provisional support: evidence bears on the predicted mechanism, with important transfer limits. - Mixed: supporting and contradicting evidence or boundary reversals are known. - Narrowed: the original form was too broad and a scoped revision is active. - R…”
  • 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-HYREG-BDE-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.