the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong/reports/open_questions_for_CCRA.md

Open Questions For CCRA

QPI

1. Should problem_owner be required in QPI output for all calls, with unknown allowed when unavailable?
2. Should time_scale be required in QPI output, or remain a recommended routing field?
3. Is the current dominant_scarcity enum sufficient: data, path_resource, consensus_order, mixed, unknown?
4. For mixed cases, should QPI always output classification=mixed, or can it output a primary classification plus mixed evidence?
5. Are the violent reduction / malicious inflation checks strong enough for review, or should they become separate required output fields?

Intellectual Archaeology

1. Should recommended_max_depth become a required model-card schema field?
2. Should stop_reason and no_deeper_reason become required output fields?
3. Should value_of_deeper_analysis be added explicitly, or is no_deeper_reason plus action_implication enough?
4. Should QPI approval be mandatory before Intellectual Archaeology can be selected, except for explicit model-extraction tasks?
5. Is philosophical_bedrock allowed only when the input explicitly concerns problem ontology or model foundations?

Regression And Selector

1. Are 17 cases per model sufficient for the next review phase?
2. Should regression_status remain pending, or move to in_progress after this expansion?
3. Is selector v0.2's no-call threshold of 0.35 acceptable for review, or should it be calibrated with real inputs?
4. Is it acceptable for mixed QPI cases to recommend QPI first and leave IA as a later candidate only after QPI output?

Status

1. Should draft-callable remain report-only for v0.2?
2. Should draft-callable become a first-class schema/status field later?
3. Should both models remain draft / B / pending? Current Codex recommendation: yes.
4. Should third model expansion remain blocked until after this review? Current Codex recommendation: yes.