research-document RFR-7F5AD9B0
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Semantic Durability Across Interface Contexts
RFR-7F5AD9B0 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Semantic Durability Across Interface Contexts
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Semantic Durability Across Interface Contexts.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active-research-package.” Its HY-CLF-002: Core-Plus-Context Model section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/design-library/research-note/2026-07-21-semantic-durability-research-execution-package.md
- Section:
HY-CLF-002: Core-Plus-Context Model - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “HY-CLF-002: Core-Plus-Context Model” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “Statement: A small invariant semantic core can remain stable while supplementary regions and interaction wrappers vary by context. Rationale: Domain meaning may be stable even when task-specific details and controls differ. Supporting evidence: Mature systems separate foundations from patterns; accessibility is shared…”
- 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-SEMANTIC-DURABILITY-ACROSS-INTER-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.