Auto: schemas/contribution-weights.yaml | 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

schemas/contribution-weights.yaml

@@ -1,30 +1,36 @@
 # Contribution Weights
 #
 # Global policy for how much each contributor role counts toward weighted scores.
-# Used by the build pipeline (extract-graph-data.py) to compute weighted_score
-# in contributors.json. Updated via PR — changes here affect all contributor profiles.
+# Used by the build pipeline to compute weighted_score in contributors.json
+# and Contribution Index (CI) in reward-mechanism.md.
+# Updated via PR — changes here affect all contributor profiles.
 #
 # Weights sum to 1.0. The build pipeline multiplies each contributor's role count
 # by the corresponding weight, then sums across roles.
 #
-# Current rationale (2026-03-11):
-# - Extraction is the current bottleneck and requires the most skill (reading sources,
-#   separating signal from noise, writing prose-as-title). Highest weight.
-# - Challenge is the quality mechanism — adversarial review catches errors that
-#   self-review cannot. Second highest. This also signals that the system values
-#   intellectual honesty over agreement: challenging bad claims is rewarded more
-#   than rubber-stamping good ones.
-# - Sourcing discovers new information but is lower effort per instance.
+# Current rationale (2026-03-14, revised from Rio's mechanism design brief):
+# - Sourcer = Extractor = Challenger at 0.25 each. This signals that finding
+#   the right source with a clear rationale, turning it into a structured claim,
+#   and challenging existing claims are equally valuable acts. Equal weighting
+#   prevents agent CI domination during bootstrap (agents fill extractor role,
+#   humans fill sourcer and challenger roles).
 # - Synthesis connects claims across domains — high value but rare.
-# - Review is essential but is partially automated via the eval pipeline.
+# - Review is essential but partially automated via the eval pipeline.
 #
-# These weights WILL change as the collective matures. When challenges become
-# the bottleneck (more claims than reviewers), challenger weight should increase.
-# When synthesis becomes the primary value-add, synthesizer weight increases.
+# Review after 6 months of data. If sourcer contributions turn out to be
+# low-effort, the weight is too high. If challengers produce disproportionate
+# belief changes, the weight is too low. Weights are policy, not physics.
 
 role_weights:
-  sourcer: 0.15
-  extractor: 0.40
-  challenger: 0.20
+  sourcer: 0.25
+  extractor: 0.25
+  challenger: 0.25
   synthesizer: 0.15
   reviewer: 0.10
+
+# Contribution Index (CI) leaderboard weights
+# See core/reward-mechanism.md for full spec
+ci_weights:
+  belief_movers: 0.30
+  challenge_champions: 0.30
+  connection_finders: 0.40