research-document RFR-F8D7054A
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry
RFR-F8D7054A — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “active.” Its Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/clinical-communication-engineering/hypothesis-registry/clinical-communication-engineering-hypothesis-registry-v1.md
- Section:
Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Clinical Communication Engineering Hypothesis Registry” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “ID Hypothesis Status Initial confidence Primary falsification measure --- --- --- --- --- HY-CCE-001 A task-first summary followed by evidence-on-demand reduces time-to-correct-plan without increasing omission errors versus source-order presentation. Candidate Medium Time, plan accuracy, critical omission rate HY-CCE-…”
- 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-HYR-CCE-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.