| name | reproduce-then-extend |
| description | Use when the task is to reproduce, replicate or re-implement a published study, at design time and when reporting results. Covers what a reproduction must report, how to compare against the source study's numbers, and why the reproduction comes before any improvement. |
A reproduction is judged against the study it reproduces
When the task is to reproduce published work, the deliverable is not "a good
study of this topic". It is: the same quantities, measured the same way,
reported next to the published ones, with the agreement or disagreement stated.
The comparison table is the result
Build it early and keep it visible:
| quantity | published | ours | agree? |
One row per quantity the source study reports and this task asks for. Fill the
published column at the literature stage, before you have your own numbers —
that ordering is what keeps the comparison honest, because a target read after
the fact tends to become the answer you find.
Where you cannot recompute a published value, say so in the row rather than
leaving it blank. Where your number disagrees, say by how much and give your
best account of why; a disagreement you explain is a finding, and one you omit
is an error the reader will find for you.
Reproduce first, improve second
If you see a better method, the order still matters: reproduce what the paper
did, report it, and then show your improvement as a separate result against your
own reproduction. An improvement reported without the reproduction leaves the
reader unable to tell whether you beat the paper or measured something else.
Scope
Reproduce every arm the task names, not the one that worked. A reproduction that
covers one of three models is a reproduction of one third of the study, and the
missing two are what the reader notices.
