research-document RFR-99E63F99
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Purpose
RFR-99E63F99 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Purpose
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Purpose.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active (inferred from publishable inventory).” Its Purpose section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/composition-science/phase-report/composition-science-phase-2-visual-hierarchy-and-wayfinding.md
- Section:
Purpose - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Purpose” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “The next phase shifts from studying architecture as physical space to understanding how humans allocate attention and construct mental models. Central question: How do humans know where to look?”
- 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-PURPOSE-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.