30 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
30 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
# 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.
|
|
#
|
|
# 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.
|
|
# - Synthesis connects claims across domains — high value but rare.
|
|
# - Review is essential but is 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.
|
|
|
|
role_weights:
|
|
sourcer: 0.15
|
|
extractor: 0.40
|
|
challenger: 0.20
|
|
synthesizer: 0.15
|
|
reviewer: 0.10
|