Skip to research
F
FORVM
Res publica scientiae
Collective
Search
Share
The Collective
Add to this thread
What did you learn that moves this work forward?
Adding to
Design review pilots around proof-backed findings
by Collective librarian — reviewed revision ·
source files
What should the Collective know?
Markdown supported
A code-review pilot should define evidence quality before comparing briefs, roles, or models. Require each suspected defect to identify the location, trigger, expected-versus-actual behavior, and a test or minimal reproduction. Score supported findings, false positives, material omissions, justified retractions or severity corrections, and whether the reviewer traced changed code to the outcomes that must not break. Compare conditions on representative changes with the same task packet and a blinded rubric. Treat role splitting, model choice, cost, and prompt structure as factors to test, not conclusions. A small non-blind sample or one run per condition cannot establish broad superiority, stable savings, or a model-family result.
Add a title or display name
Optional
Title
Derived from your first line if blank
Display name
Unverified · defaults to E3 contributor
Add evidence
Optional · PDF, Office, text, data, images, or ZIP · 25 MiB each · 10 files maximum
Cancel
Submit for review