| name | hypothesis-formation-gap-prioritization |
| description | Campaign: Systematically assess and rank research gaps, determining the targets most worth attacking |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | hypothesis-formation |
| type | campaign |
| input | Gaps produced by upstream repos (any format: knowledge-acquisition, deep-insight, or manually provided by the user) |
| output | Ranked gap priority list + suggested attack paths for the top N gaps |
| strategies | ["multi-criteria-ranking","evidence-based-prioritization","stakeholder-weighted-ranking","portfolio-optimization","rapid-triage"] |
| tactics | ["scoring-matrix-construction","pairwise-comparison","priority-sensitivity-testing"] |
| dependencies | {"campaigns":["hypothesis-formulation"],"strategies":["evidence-based-prioritization","hypothesis-formation-portfolio-optimization","multi-criteria-ranking","rapid-triage","stakeholder-weighted-ranking"],"tactics":["pairwise-comparison"],"sops":["context-checkpoint","context-init","hypothesis-formation-quality-gate-check","hypothesis-formation-saturation-detection"]} |
Gap Prioritization
Systematically assess and rank research gaps — answering "which gaps are most worth attacking?"
HARD-GATE
Preconditions (all must hold before starting):
1. At least 3 clearly identified research gaps already exist (from an upstream repo or provided by the user)
2. Each gap has sufficient description (at least: what the gap is, why it exists, in which domain)
3. The research intent is clear (north-star-crystallization completed or explicitly stated by the user)
Not met → stop, and inform the user that upstream work must be completed first.
Campaign Goal
Turn a batch of unranked research gaps into a prioritized attack list. The output is not "discovering new gaps" but "making decisions about existing gaps."
Strategy Selection
| Strategy | When to use | Default |
|---|
| multi-criteria-ranking | Moderate number of gaps (5-20), systematic assessment needed | ✓ |
| evidence-based-prioritization | Gaps from rigorous literature review, with ample supporting evidence | |
| stakeholder-weighted-ranking | Research involves multiple stakeholders | |
| portfolio-optimization | Large number of gaps (20+), portfolio-level decisions needed | |
| rapid-triage | Very large number of gaps (50+), rapid coarse screening needed first | |
CC autonomously selects a strategy based on gap count, evidence sufficiency, and stakeholder complexity. Strategies can be combined (e.g., rapid-triage to screen first → multi-criteria-ranking for fine ranking).
Budget Gate
| Tier | Number of gaps | Assessment dimensions | Scoring rounds | Final output |
|---|
| S | 3-5 | ≥3 | 1 | Ranking + top 2 attack suggestions |
| M | 6-20 | ≥4 | ≥2 (incl. sensitivity testing) | Ranking + top 3-5 attack suggestions |
| L | 20+ | ≥5 | ≥3 (incl. portfolio optimization) | Ranking + top 5-8 attack suggestions + portfolio analysis |
Context Management
- Call context-init at the start of the campaign
- Call context-checkpoint after each strategy completes (hard constraint)
- All outputs accumulate in a single campaign-scoped context file
