research-document RFR-90905CFF
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Clinical Communication Engineering Foundation Research Execution Package
RFR-90905CFF — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Clinical Communication Engineering Foundation Research Execution Package
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Clinical Communication Engineering Foundation Research Execution Package.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “research-baseline.” Its Mission result section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/clinical-communication-engineering/research-execution-package/rep-cce-0001-clinical-communication-engineering-foundation.md
- Section:
Mission result - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Mission result” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “This cycle establishes Clinical Communication Engineering (CCE) as a candidate safety-oriented engineering discipline rather than a report-redesign exercise. CCE studies and validates how clinical evidence is transformed into representations that let a defined reader, performing a defined task in a defined environment…”
- 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-RP-CCE-0001-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.