research-document RFR-F139C589

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Beautiful Digital Experiences — Territory and Evidence Foundation

RFR-F139C589 — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Beautiful Digital Experiences — Territory and Evidence Foundation

Research opportunity

Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Beautiful Digital Experiences — Territory and Evidence Foundation.”

Background

The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active-research-package.” Its Dependency model section provides the immediate evidence boundary.

Evidence trace

  • Origin document: content/projects/beautiful-digital-experiences/research-execution-package/rep-bde-0001-territory-and-evidence-foundation.md
  • Section: Dependency model
  • Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Dependency model” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
  • Supporting evidence excerpt: “text stimulus relations + content + temporal behavior × perceiver history + culture + expertise + current goal × category + task + device + social context ↓ predictive fit / fluency ↔ interest / exploration ↓ coherence · appropriateness · craft · expression · distinction ↓ beauty · trust · desire · return intention (m…”
  • 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-BDE-0001-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.