research-document RFR-D82426A2
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Evaluation, Measurement, and Experimentation Foundation and Falsification
RFR-D82426A2 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Evaluation, Measurement, and Experimentation Foundation and Falsification
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Evaluation, Measurement, and Experimentation Foundation and Falsification.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active-research-package.” Its Construct and outcome model v0.1 section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/evaluation-measurement/research-execution-package/rep-ve-evl-001-foundation-and-falsification.md
- Section:
Construct and outcome model v0.1 - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Construct and outcome model v0.1” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “Measures must be attached to a named construct and inference. The following constructs must not be collapsed merely because they correlate: Layer Construct Candidate observations Invalid shortcut --- --- --- --- 1 Availability exposure, viewport presence, rendering state assuming rendered means perceivable 2 Notice an…”
- 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-REP-VE-EVL-001-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.