Visual Engineering Research

An open index of evidence, theory, and practice

research-document RFR-8D838D22

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Rejected Alternatives

Identifier
RFR-8D838D22
Research Area
General Research
Status
Open
Version
0.1
Priority
medium
Updated
2026-07-22
Source
research/frontier/records/RFR-8D838D22.md

RFR-8D838D22 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Rejected Alternatives

Research opportunity

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Rejected Alternatives.”

Background

The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active (inferred from publishable inventory).” Its Rejected Alternatives section provides the immediate evidence boundary.

Evidence trace

  • Origin document: knowledge-platform/risk-assessment.md
  • Section: Rejected Alternatives
  • Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Rejected Alternatives” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
  • Supporting evidence excerpt: “- Discipline-first folders as the primary architecture - Project-only organization without shared concept ownership - Docs-only static site generators as the full platform model - Manual curation of registries and backlinks”
  • 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-REJECTED-ALTERNATIVES-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.