From 88d93c9920b36a01de5e323fb31ec37a991b258a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: m3taversal Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 19:04:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Auto: schemas/contribution-weights.yaml | 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) --- schemas/contribution-weights.yaml | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/schemas/contribution-weights.yaml b/schemas/contribution-weights.yaml index 96d67b6c..30d7c487 100644 --- a/schemas/contribution-weights.yaml +++ b/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