research-document RFR-99306B86
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Web Component Framework Architecture Probes
RFR-99306B86 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Web Component Framework Architecture Probes
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Web Component Framework Architecture Probes.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “verified.” Its EX-WC-003: Authoring model probe section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/design-library/experiment-report/web-component-framework-architecture-probes-v1.md
- Section:
EX-WC-003: Authoring model probe - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “EX-WC-003: Authoring model probe” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “- Compared: - Native HTMLElement - Lit / ReactiveElement - Mixed architecture - Result: - Native HTMLElement wins for minimal primitives and behavior-light elements. - Lit wins on ergonomics for complex interactive custom elements. - Mixed architecture best fits the category-specific evidence and avoids forcing layout…”
- 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-EX-WC-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.