research-document RFR-B1D83585
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Project Atlas Autonomous Research Report: Johannes Itten's Seven Color Contrasts
RFR-B1D83585 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Project Atlas Autonomous Research Report: Johannes Itten's Seven Color Contrasts
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Project Atlas Autonomous Research Report: Johannes Itten's Seven Color Contrasts.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “Research Synthesis.” Its Model 1 — Contrast Vector Model section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/project-atlas/research-report/project-atlas-autonomous-research-itten-seven-contrasts-v0-1.md
- Section:
Model 1 — Contrast Vector Model - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Model 1 — Contrast Vector Model” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “text C = f( ΔL, ΔH, ΔC, A, B, F, D, Ad, S, T ) Where: - ΔL = lightness or luminance difference - ΔH = chromatic-direction difference - ΔC = chroma, colorfulness, or saturation difference - A = area ratio - B = boundary structure - F = spatial frequency - D = surround distribution - Ad = adaptation - S = semantic diffe…”
- 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-PROJECT-ATLAS-AUTONOMOUS-RESEARC-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.