research-document RFR-BAE7DE3A
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Before implementation
RFR-BAE7DE3A — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Before implementation
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Before implementation.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active (inferred from publishable inventory).” Its Before implementation section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: agent-context/UI-DECISION-CHECKLIST.md
- Section:
Before implementation - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Before implementation” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “- What is the primary user task? - What must be recognized immediately? - What requires deliberate verification? - What is the intended reading and action order? - Which relationships must remain visible? - What are the consequences of misunderstanding or error? - Which existing product and design-system constraints a…”
- 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-BEFORE-IMPLEMENTATION-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.