research-document RFR-E69DBA45

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Composition Science Atlas Research Framework

RFR-E69DBA45 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Composition Science Atlas Research Framework

Research opportunity

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Composition Science Atlas Research Framework.”

Background

The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “canonical-candidate.” Its 1. Governing Model section provides the immediate evidence boundary.

Evidence trace

  • Origin document: content/projects/project-atlas/research-framework/composition-science-atlas-research-framework-v1.md
  • Section: 1. Governing Model
  • Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “1. Governing Model” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
  • Supporting evidence excerpt: “Project Atlas contains six connected layers. text Disciplines ↓ Source Evidence ↓ Domain Findings ↓ Cross-Discipline Translations ↓ Candidate Principles and Boundary Conditions ↓ Theory, Predictions, Experiments, and Applications Each layer answers a different question. Layer Question --- --- Discipline Where did the …”
  • 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-COMPOSITION-SCIENCE-ATLAS-RESEAR-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.