Preregistered Empirical Evaluation Framework
Empirical Testing Framework for AI Labs
A quality-gated, architecture-agnostic protocol for testing whether a specified implementation of Robbie’s Razor changes the performance, resource use, reusable state, or stability of an AI system under equivalent, preregistered conditions.
Protocol boundary: This framework does not assume that Razor-guided reasoning is more efficient. It defines how that proposition can be tested, what evidence must be collected, and what would count as failure or an inconclusive result.
Canonical and Evidentiary Notice
This protocol is governed by GC-MRD-v2.0 and should be read alongside the Grand Compression Canonical Claims Register. The governing framework defines the theory and its claim boundaries; this page defines a controlled process for evaluating specified implementations under observable conditions.
“When competing explanations exist, prefer the model that follows compression → expression → memory → recursion.”
Canonical formulation of Robbie’s Razor. This sentence should not be paraphrased when presented as the canonical law.
The law supplies the proposition to be examined. It does not, by itself, establish that a prompt, controller, memory system, registry, retrieval process, or other implementation will reduce cost, improve quality, preserve state, or remain stable in a particular model or workload.
GC-MRD-v2.0 defines the governing framework, terminology, scope, claim boundaries, and formal evidence states.
This protocol preregisters the system, workload, baseline, quality threshold, metrics, failure conditions, and analysis plan.
Results receive scoped finding labels and may inform a separate formal evidence-state review. A documented observation is not automatically a Supported claim.
Implementation is not validation. Building a tool, publishing code, integrating the framework, licensing it, accepting payment, appearing in a repository, or being used in an AI interface can demonstrate implementation, publication, access, or adoption. None of those events independently demonstrates effectiveness.
Results apply only to the registered system, version, configuration, workload, constraints, measurement period, and evidence boundary. Transfer to another model, domain, scale, or environment requires a new test.
The Razor Auditor identifies questions, gaps, and possible test targets. This protocol converts those questions into preregistered experiments. The Robbie’s Razor Benchmark Hub organizes public evaluation pathways, while the GitHub repository serves as a public reproducibility layer for applicable code, fixtures, schemas, and result assets.
The governing sequence is: canon defines → claims register tracks → Auditor diagnoses → protocol tests → GitHub preserves → replication checks → evidence states record.
Reasoning-privacy boundary: The protocol evaluates observable inputs, outputs, tool calls, stored state, retrieval behavior, execution results, telemetry, and accepted outcomes. It neither requires nor claims access to hidden chain-of-thought.
Protocol Foundation
The Razor Evaluation Protocol provides AI laboratories, research groups, platform teams, and independent evaluators with a controlled method for testing a specified implementation of Robbie’s Razor. Its purpose is to determine whether an observed result survives equivalent conditions, a preregistered quality threshold, total-cost accounting, and repeatable measurement.
The protocol can be applied to prompt-layer experiments, controller logic, retrieval systems, agent workflows, memory architectures, registries, tool-using systems, or other observable implementations of the sequence compression → expression → memory → recursion. These four dimensions are referred to throughout this page as CEMR.
Every evaluation must identify the complete unit being tested:
System + Version + Configuration + Workload + Constraints + Measurement Period + Evidence Boundary
A result that omits any material part of this unit may be useful as an observation, but it is not sufficient for a formal evidence-state decision. Changes to model weights, model version, system prompts, decoding settings, retrieval configuration, tool access, hardware allocation, batching, workload composition, or acceptance criteria can create a new evaluation unit.
The protocol may be adapted to different model architectures and system designs because it evaluates registered behavior, outcomes, costs, and state rather than requiring one proprietary implementation.
Each conclusion is limited to the registered workload and acceptance standard. Results from reasoning, retrieval, coding, planning, or agent tasks should not be treated as interchangeable.
Findings must remain inside the available evidence boundary. Unmeasured behavior, unavailable telemetry, hidden processes, and missing cost categories should be reported as Unknown.
The protocol is most useful where a system produces observable differences that can be compared under controlled conditions, including:
Scope rule: Architecture-agnostic does not mean universally transferable. Every new model, configuration, workload, domain, scale, or operational environment requires its own applicability decision and, where claims are made, a new test.
Testable Questions
The protocol compares a registered baseline with a registered intervention under equivalent conditions. It asks whether the intervention produces a measurable difference—and whether that difference remains meaningful after quality, verification, correction, failed runs, and other material costs are included.
Each question selected for evaluation must be converted into a preregistered prediction with defined metrics, units, quality thresholds, success thresholds, failure conditions, and an analysis plan.
Quality Gate
Does the intervention meet the same preregistered standards for correctness, completeness, safety, usefulness, constraint compliance, format compliance, verification burden, correction burden, and memory fidelity?
Compression
Does the intervention reduce unnecessary representation, retrieval, repetition, or processing while preserving the information required to produce an accepted outcome?
Expression
Does the system convert its registered inputs and reusable state into an output, action, tool sequence, or decision that satisfies the same acceptance criteria?
Memory
Does stored or retrieved state preserve the relevant identity, relationships, provenance, constraints, version state, and retrieval pathways needed by later operations?
Recursion
Across repeated or nested operations, does the system preserve required facts and constraints, avoid material contradiction, and stop or escalate according to registered rules?
Total Cost
After including construction, model calls, storage, indexing, retrieval, tools, verification, human review, correction, failures, retries, coordination, infrastructure, and maintenance, does total cost change?
Under a named model version, fixed configuration, registered workload, equivalent tool access, and identical acceptance threshold, does a specified CEMR intervention change total measured cost per accepted outcome during the stated observation period?
Quality-first rule: A shorter, faster, or less expensive output is not an efficiency improvement if it fails the same acceptance standard or shifts material work into verification, correction, retries, human review, or another uncounted system component.
Non-Claim Boundary
Running this protocol does not guarantee a favorable result. It also does not convert an implementation, metric change, pilot, publication, or commercial relationship into proof that Robbie’s Razor is effective.
| The protocol does not automatically establish | Required boundary |
|---|---|
| Universal efficiency | Any efficiency finding is limited to the registered system, configuration, workload, constraints, measurement period, and acceptance standard. |
| Automatic token, FLOP, latency, or KV-cache reduction | These are separate measurable variables. A change in one does not prove a change in another, and each requires appropriate instrumentation or a clearly labeled proxy. |
| Hallucination mitigation | Factual error, unsupported assertion, contradiction, or another failure type must be operationally defined, labeled, and measured before a scoped finding can be made. |
| Energy, cooling, water, carbon, or emissions savings | Environmental conclusions require direct telemetry or a defensible accounting model that includes hardware, utilization, batching, geography, energy supply, cooling design, and measurement boundaries. |
| Transfer to other domains or systems | Success in one model, workload, domain, scale, or environment cannot be generalized to another without a new applicability decision and test. |
| Certification or compliance | A completed evaluation may produce evidence about defined requirements. It does not create certification unless a separate, documented certification process and authorized decision exist. |
| Independent validation | Author-created tools, tests, examples, or results must remain distinguishable from independent evaluation and replication. |
| Access to hidden chain-of-thought | Evaluation should rely on observable inputs, outputs, tool calls, stored state, retrieval behavior, execution results, telemetry, and accepted outcomes. |
| Effectiveness through licensing or adoption | Licensing, integration, payment, publication, indexing, publicity, or use demonstrates access, activity, or adoption—not validated performance. |
If the necessary telemetry, provenance, cost record, or comparison data are unavailable, the appropriate finding label is Unknown.
If the intervention misses its quality threshold, success threshold, or another preregistered condition, that outcome must be recorded rather than redefined after observation.
A favorable change in one measure does not erase a regression elsewhere. Tradeoffs, uncertainty, quality failures, and shifted costs must remain visible.
Interpretation rule: The protocol is designed to permit favorable, unfavorable, mixed, inconclusive, and failed outcomes. A framework that cannot record failure cannot provide a credible empirical test.
Evaluation Registration · Authority Before Target Construction
Before predictions, metrics, targets, model-visible inputs, or comparative trials are constructed, the evaluator must define both the system being tested and the governing reference state against which preservation will be judged.
The system boundary determines which components, behaviors, resource costs, and failure modes belong inside the comparison. The reference boundary determines which authority surfaces, identities, relationships, values, versions, rights, constraints, and other governed distinctions define the target that the experiment is allowed to treat as authoritative.
These two boundaries serve different purposes. A well-controlled model comparison cannot repair a defective authority package, and a coherent authority package does not guarantee that either evaluated model path will satisfy the downstream Quality Gate.
Upstream Reference Architecture
Metrology for Meaning™ examines how governed machine systems establish canonical reference strongly enough for independent actors to determine whether they are operating on the same state.
Within this protocol, that architectural problem becomes an operational requirement: the benchmark must establish a valid reference before it constructs the target used to evaluate the model.
Canonical Authority → Reference Coherence → Governed State → Target Construction → Model Evaluation
No target construction before the Reference Gate passes.
An authority-layer defect must remain an authority-layer result rather than being silently repaired and later attributed to model behavior.
Authority Package + Reference Contract + System + Version + Configuration + Workload + Constraints + Measurement Period + Evidence Boundary
The reference additions do not replace the existing system-boundary fields. They define the upstream authority conditions required before a benchmark target can be constructed from those fields.
The Reference Contract defines how public or private authority surfaces will be interpreted before the evaluator sees whether they produce a favorable target. It should freeze the rules required to distinguish missing information, ambiguity, contradiction, binding failure, permitted equivalence, and valid authority.
| Reference field | Required registration | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Authority sources | Exact URLs, documents, registries, manifests, schemas, APIs, records, database views, or other authority surfaces permitted to define the target. | Prevents post-result source substitution or selective authority. |
| Authority precedence | Which surface controls if two registered sources differ, and whether unresolved conflicts require censorship. | Prevents the evaluator from choosing whichever source produces the preferred target. |
| Capture timing | Capture date, time, version, response status, and any contemporaneity requirement. | Makes later source change distinguishable from the state available during the experiment. |
| Selectors | Exact selectors, paths, field names, headings, keys, IDs, or extraction rules used to locate each governed value. | Distinguishes an unavailable value from a value the evaluator failed to locate consistently. |
| Required values | The complete preregistered set of governed leaves, relationships, rights fields, constraints, versions, or other required target elements. | Prevents target construction from proceeding with hidden omissions. |
| Binding rules | Required relationships between sources, identifiers, entities, names, versions, fields, parent-child relationships, rights, or canonical references. | Distinguishes complete information from a coherent governed state. |
| Normalization rules | Case folding, whitespace handling, punctuation handling, Unicode normalization, trademark handling, unit conversion, alias resolution, or other permitted transformations. | Prevents transformations from being invented after the evaluator sees a mismatch. |
| Equivalence rules | Whether exact equality, semantic equivalence, numeric tolerance, schema equivalence, aliasing, or another relation is permitted. | Defines the intended metrological tolerance before the result is observed. |
| Correction policy | Whether manual repair, inference, source substitution, normalization, adjudication, or external clarification is allowed—and under what frozen rule. | Prevents the operator from silently repairing the authority package. |
| Rights and access | Required rights, permissions, licenses, access controls, retrieval rules, confidentiality boundaries, or usage restrictions. | Ensures the target is not only identifiable but validly usable under the registered evaluation. |
| Censorship rule | Exact conditions under which the authority layer prevents hidden-target construction and ends the downstream experiment. | Converts reference failure into a preregistered result rather than an improvised decision. |
After the authority surfaces are captured, evaluate the reference package in the preregistered order. Each gate answers a different question and should preserve its own outcome.
Gate A
Were all preregistered authority surfaces and required values publicly or privately available as required?
Gate B
Did the registered selector rules identify one permitted source or value without unresolved ambiguity?
Gate C
Are all preregistered governed leaves, rights values, constraints, relationships, and other required target elements present?
Gate D
Do the registered authority surfaces agree to the level of tolerance declared by the Reference Contract?
Gate E
Can every preregistered relationship required to construct the governed target be bound under the frozen rules?
Gate Result
Only after the complete Reference Gate passes may hidden-target construction proceed.
If the Reference Gate fails under the frozen contract, do not construct the hidden target, do not expose a model to the benchmark input, do not run the comparative model conditions, and do not calculate a downstream economic advantage unless the preregistration explicitly defines another valid pathway.
The appropriate result is a versioned authority-layer outcome identifying the failed gate, supporting evidence, and scope of censorship.
Anti-Repair Rule
Do not silently normalize, reinterpret, correct, substitute, merge, infer, remove punctuation, remove marks, resolve aliases, repair relationships, or choose an alternative authority surface unless that transformation was permitted by the frozen Reference Contract before capture.
Study 008 · Protocol Precedent
Study 008 captured every required governed leaf value and encountered no authority-source availability problem or selector ambiguity problem.
One required cross-source canonical relationship nevertheless failed the preregistered binding rule. The study therefore censored itself before hidden-target construction, model-visible input construction, model observation, cache probing, paid retrieval, x402 payment, or economic comparison.
The lesson is procedural: available information is not automatically a coherent governed reference.
Layer 1
The benchmark cannot establish the preregistered reference strongly enough to construct the target. Downstream model and economic questions remain untested.
Layer 2
A valid target exists, but one or more evaluated conditions fail the preregistered Quality Gate or another model-level requirement.
Layer 3
The Reference Gate and Quality Gate pass, allowing cost, Net Reuse Benefit, break-even, Dynamic Reuse Frontier, or Compression Dividend analysis.
| Registration field | Required record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| System | Model, application, agent, retrieval system, controller, tools, memory layer, registry, and human operations included in the test. | Prevents the comparison from counting benefits in one component while hiding costs elsewhere. |
| Version | Model identifier, release, application build, prompt version, controller version, dataset version, registry version, and dependencies. | Makes the result reproducible and prevents silent version changes. |
| Configuration | System instructions, decoding settings, context limits, retrieval parameters, memory rules, tool permissions, retries, routing, batching, and hardware allocation. | Separates the tested intervention from unrelated configuration effects. |
| Workload | Named task set, sampling procedure, task classes, difficulty strata, dependencies, and number of evaluation units. | Defines the population to which the result may apply. |
| Constraints | Time, context, compute, storage, tools, privacy, safety, format, cost, permissions, rights, and stopping constraints. | Ensures the comparison occurs under equivalent operating requirements. |
| Measurement period | Start and end times, capture timing, trial order, warm-up treatment, repeated-run schedule, and known infrastructure conditions. | Makes time-dependent variation, source change, and operational drift visible. |
| Evidence boundary | Authority captures, logs, telemetry, provenance records, cost records, annotations, unavailable variables, proxies, and known missing evidence. | Prevents conclusions from extending beyond what was actually observed. |
Passing the Reference Gate authorizes target construction; it does not permit arbitrary interpretation. The target must be generated using only the preregistered authority surfaces, selectors, transformations, equivalence rules, and construction procedure.
The resulting target should be versioned and traceable back to every governing source element required to construct it. Where blinding is part of the experimental design, target construction and model-visible input construction should remain operationally separated.
Public / Registered Authority → Frozen Capture → Reference Audit → Governed State → Hidden Target → Model-Visible Input → Model Observation
The Razor intervention must remain a versioned change to the registered baseline. State whether it operates through a prompt, controller, memory process, retrieval rule, registry, tool policy, training procedure, or combination of components.
The record should identify which compression, expression, memory, and recursion dimensions the intervention is intended to affect, how each dimension is operationalized, and which system components remain unchanged.
The intervention must not be permitted to alter the frozen reference state merely because an authority discrepancy would otherwise prevent or weaken the intended comparison.
Protocol Order
Freeze Authority Sources → Freeze Reference Contract → Capture Evidence → Availability → Selection → Completeness → Coherence → Binding → Reference Gate → Target Construction → Model-Visible Input → Baseline / Intervention → Quality Gate → Cost & Reuse Measurement → Result Record → Evidence-State Review
Change-control rule: If a material authority source, selector, normalization rule, equivalence rule, binding rule, target-construction rule, system component, version, workload, constraint, acceptance threshold, or measurement procedure changes after preregistration, preserve the original registration and determine whether the affected work becomes exploratory or requires a new evaluation.
Reference-boundary rule: A model should not be asked to resolve an authority defect that the benchmark itself has defined as part of the target. If authority repair is a research question, register it as a separate intervention and evaluate it as such.
Task and Dataset Definition
The workload determines what the evaluation can legitimately say. Register the tasks, source material, sampling procedure, difficulty distribution, acceptance rules, and exclusions before observing comparative results.
Workloads should reflect the intended use of the evaluated system. A test set selected only because it appears favorable to one intervention cannot support a credible comparative finding.
Production-like tasks selected to estimate performance under the system’s intended operating conditions.
Deterministic or tightly bounded tasks designed to isolate identity, constraint, memory, retrieval, or recursion behavior.
Adversarial, long-context, collision-heavy, constraint-heavy, or failure-oriented tasks used to identify operating limits rather than average performance.
| Field | Registration requirement |
|---|---|
| Workload name and version | Assign a stable identifier and version to the complete evaluation set. |
| Source and provenance | Document whether tasks come from production, a public benchmark, a synthetic generator, a controlled fixture, or another source. |
| Task classes | Identify relevant categories such as retrieval, planning, code, tool use, synthesis, constraint following, state retention, or repeated recursion. |
| Sampling procedure | Record inclusion, exclusion, randomization, stratification, deduplication, and any balancing procedure. |
| Difficulty and length | Describe task complexity, context length, expected operation count, tool dependence, and relevant difficulty strata. |
| Dependencies | Identify required source documents, retrieval indexes, tools, APIs, stored state, prior turns, or external services. |
| Accepted outcome | Define what counts as correct, complete, safe, useful, constraint-compliant, and successfully verified. |
| Failure labels | Define task failure, factual error, unsupported assertion, constraint violation, tool failure, state loss, timeout, and other applicable outcomes. |
| Confidentiality status | Record whether prompts, source data, outputs, annotations, or results can be published, summarized, or accessed by an independent evaluator. |
Timeouts, failed tool calls, correction-heavy outputs, missing answers, constraint violations, and tasks on which the intervention performs poorly must remain in the result record according to the preregistered missing-data and exclusion rules.
Anti-selection rule: Do not remove a workload, task class, difficulty stratum, or completed trial after results are visible merely because it weakens the preferred conclusion. Any post-registration exclusion must be disclosed, justified, and reported with sensitivity analysis where possible.
Comparative Control
The baseline should represent the strongest relevant system or procedure that the Razor intervention is intended to improve or replace. It should not be intentionally weakened, stripped of ordinary optimizations, or configured in a way that creates an artificial advantage for the intervention.
Use the current production configuration, the strongest accepted internal method, or another documented comparator that a reasonable practitioner would use for the registered workload. If no established baseline exists, disclose how the comparator was constructed and why it is appropriate.
| Component | Baseline arm | Intervention arm |
|---|---|---|
| Model and version | Registered model, weights, release, and endpoint. | The same model and version unless the model change is itself a separately registered factor. |
| Workload | Same registered tasks and source material. | Same tasks, sources, ordering rules, and inclusion criteria. |
| Tools and retrieval | Registered tools, permissions, indexes, and retrieval access. | Equivalent access unless the Razor intervention explicitly changes this component and its costs are included. |
| Decoding and limits | Registered temperature, sampling, context, output, time, and retry limits. | Matched settings unless a difference is preregistered as part of the intervention. |
| Infrastructure | Registered hardware, region, routing, batching, and service tier. | Matched or appropriately randomized infrastructure conditions. |
| Quality standard | Same acceptance criteria and adjudication procedure. | Identical quality threshold, verification process, and correction policy. |
| Measured cost | All material costs required to reach an accepted outcome. | The same cost categories, including intervention-specific construction and maintenance. |
Where appropriate, register more than one comparator. A production baseline can show operational relevance, while a simpler control can isolate the effect of a specific prompt, controller, memory, or retrieval change.
Report each comparison separately. Do not select only the baseline that produces the most favorable result after the data are observed.
Known limitations, instability, error patterns, and operational costs in the baseline should be documented before comparative results are reviewed.
Prompt construction, controller execution, state creation, storage, indexing, retrieval, verification, and maintenance introduced by the intervention belong in the comparison.
Each arm should receive a reasonable, documented configuration without post-result tuning that is unavailable to the other arm.
Baseline-integrity rule: If the baseline and intervention differ in multiple uncontrolled ways, the evaluation may document an observed system-level difference, but it cannot attribute that difference specifically to Robbie’s Razor.
Acceptance Before Efficiency
Quality must be evaluated before a reduction in tokens, latency, model calls, storage, or another resource measure can be interpreted as improved efficiency. The baseline and intervention must be judged against the same preregistered acceptance standard.
A shorter or cheaper result is not more efficient unless it passes the same acceptance standard.
Select and operationally define the dimensions that apply to the registered workload. Not every task requires every dimension, but exclusions should be justified before results are observed.
Whether claims, calculations, classifications, actions, or execution results satisfy the registered truth or validation standard.
Whether all required components, conditions, requested outputs, and material qualifications are present.
Whether the output or action remains within applicable safety policies, operating limits, and risk controls.
Whether the result can perform its intended function for the registered user, system, or downstream process.
Whether hard limits, stop rules, permissions, exclusions, deadlines, and task-specific constraints are preserved.
Whether the output satisfies required structure, syntax, fields, data types, ordering, or machine-readable validation.
The work required to determine whether the result is acceptable, including automated checks and human review.
The work, retries, edits, tool calls, or interventions required to convert an initially unacceptable result into an accepted outcome.
Whether required identity, relationships, provenance, constraints, version state, and retrieval pathways remain intact.
| Procedure element | Required definition |
|---|---|
| Acceptance threshold | The minimum score or complete set of conditions required for an accepted outcome. |
| Evaluation method | Exact match, executable test, schema validator, source verification, rubric, expert review, user acceptance, or another registered method. |
| Adjudication | Who or what resolves disputed, ambiguous, or partially correct outcomes and under which rules. |
| Blinding | Whether human or model-based evaluators can identify the experimental arm. If blinding is not possible, record the limitation. |
| Evaluator reliability | Calibration, agreement, audit sampling, or other checks used when judgment is not fully deterministic. |
| Unscorable cases | Rules for missing references, unavailable tools, corrupted data, evaluator disagreement, or tasks that cannot receive a valid quality decision. |
Required reporting: Report acceptance rate for each arm, the number of accepted, failed, and unscorable trials, and the reason for each exclusion. Resource comparisons should be presented both across all attempted trials and per accepted outcome where appropriate.
Quality-gate rule: If the intervention fails the preregistered quality threshold, the efficiency prediction fails for that evaluation even if one or more resource measures decrease.
Before Authority Capture or Comparative Results Are Observed
A formal Robbie’s Razor evaluation requires more than a prediction registered before comparative model results are inspected. When the experiment depends on governed external or internal authority, the evaluator must also preregister how the authoritative state will be identified, selected, bound, transformed, and either accepted or rejected before target construction begins.
Preregistration therefore protects two separate boundaries. The first prevents the evaluator from changing the reference after seeing a discrepancy. The second prevents the evaluator from changing the prediction or comparison after seeing model or economic results.
The registration may be public, confidential, or held by an independent reviewer, but it should be time-stamped, versioned, attributable, preserved against silent revision, and sufficiently complete to reconstruct both the authority decision and the later experiment.
Metrology for Meaning™
Metrology for Meaning™ supplies the architectural reason for this requirement. A system cannot meaningfully measure preservation unless it first defines the reference state against which preservation will be judged.
Freeze Authority → Freeze Interpretation Rules → Capture Evidence → Resolve Reference → Construct Target → Run Experiment
The rules for resolving authority must be frozen before the authority is tested.
Otherwise, the evaluator can unconsciously change the standard after discovering that the registered sources do not produce the desired target.
Before authority capture or confirmatory evaluation begins, register the authority package, Reference Contract, Reference Gate, target-construction procedure, prediction, system boundary, version and configuration, workload, baseline, intervention, metrics, units, Quality Gate, success threshold, failure conditions, analysis plan, observation period, missing-data procedure, result-record format, and total-cost treatment.
| Registration field | Required content |
|---|---|
| Registration ID | Stable identifier, title, evaluator or team, version, registration date, authority-capture date or window, change history, and confirmatory status. |
| Governing authority | Applicable canonical authority, claim identifier, specification version, governing document, protocol version, and any hierarchy determining which authority controls the evaluation. |
| Authority package | Exact registered URLs, documents, registries, schemas, manifests, APIs, database records, local records, rights surfaces, or other sources permitted to define the target. |
| Authority precedence | Which registered source governs when two authority surfaces differ, whether source precedence is hierarchical or conditional, and what happens when precedence cannot resolve the conflict. |
| Capture procedure | Capture method, date and time rules, HTTP or access-status treatment, version recording, content hashing where applicable, retry policy, contemporaneity requirement, and treatment of unavailable sources. |
| Selectors and extraction rules | Exact selectors, paths, keys, headings, fields, IDs, relationship selectors, extraction order, and handling of zero, one, or multiple matches. |
| Required governed state | Complete preregistered set of target-critical leaves, identities, relationships, values, constraints, versions, rights, provenance elements, and other required state. |
| Binding rules | Exact relationships that must hold across registered sources and the procedure used to determine whether those relationships bind successfully. |
| Normalization rules | Any permitted case conversion, whitespace handling, punctuation handling, Unicode transformation, symbol or trademark handling, alias resolution, unit conversion, date conversion, ordering rule, or other normalization. |
| Equivalence standard | Exact equality, schema equality, numeric tolerance, semantic equivalence, alias equivalence, set equality, ordering tolerance, or another explicitly defined equivalence relation. |
| Correction and repair policy | Whether manual correction, external clarification, inferred repair, source substitution, normalization, adjudication, aliasing, or relationship repair is allowed. Any permitted procedure must be frozen before observation. |
| Reference Gate | Pass, fail, censor, or continuation rules for availability, unambiguous selection, completeness, cross-source coherence, required binding, rights, and any other applicable authority condition. |
| Reference-gate failure outcome | Exact result classification and stopping rule if the authority package cannot establish a valid governed state. State explicitly whether hidden-target construction, model-visible input construction, model calls, retrieval, payment, or economics are prohibited after failure. |
| Target-construction procedure | Deterministic or registered transformation from passed authority state into the hidden target, including field ordering, derivation rules, exclusions, transformations, target versioning, and provenance linkage. |
| Model-visible input procedure | Rules determining which portions of the authority package, target, prompt, source materials, tools, retrieval surfaces, or reusable state each evaluated arm may see. |
| Prediction | Directional, non-directional, equivalence, non-inferiority, threshold, frontier, or other falsifiable prediction stated before comparative results are observed. |
| System boundary | Complete evaluation unit, included components, excluded components, operational dependencies, human operations, and evidence boundary. |
| Version and configuration | Model, software, prompts, controller, memory, retrieval, registries, tools, decoding, routing, limits, infrastructure, pricing references, and applicable configuration identifiers. |
| Workload | Named workload, version, source, sample definition, task classes, dependencies, exclusions, required state, and accepted-outcome rules. |
| Baseline and intervention | Comparator selection, intervention definition, matched conditions, reusable-state permissions, expected mechanism, known overhead, and any treatment-specific access differences. |
| Metrics and units | Primary and secondary measures, operational definitions, units, aggregation rules, statistical or deterministic procedures, normalization, calculation provenance, and known limitations. |
| Quality Gate | Minimum acceptance standard, permitted non-inferiority margin where applicable, scoring procedure, adjudication, evaluator rules, and treatment of unscorable outcomes. |
| Success threshold | Magnitude, direction, uncertainty requirement, break-even rule, frontier condition, equivalence threshold, or complete set of conditions required for the prediction to pass. |
| Failure conditions | Authority failures, quality failures, prediction failures, economic failures, protocol failures, safety stops, invalidation conditions, censoring conditions, and circumstances producing an inconclusive result. |
| Analysis plan | Comparison method, estimand, deterministic or statistical procedure, uncertainty treatment, subgroup plan, multiplicity treatment, economic calculation, frontier analysis, and sensitivity analysis where applicable. |
| Observation period | Authority-capture window, trial dates, duration, run order, repeated-trial plan, warm-up policy, cache treatment, temporal drift policy, and stopping rule. |
| Missing-data procedure | Treatment of unavailable authority sources, missing governed values, timeouts, service failures, unavailable telemetry, corrupted logs, unscorable outputs, incomplete trials, and partially available cost data. |
| Total-cost discipline | Included cost categories, units, allocation rules, excluded costs, pricing source and date, treatment of one-time versus recurring costs, and normalization per attempted and accepted outcome. |
| Result-record format | Required authority-gate fields, target status, model execution status, findings, provenance, raw-data references, calculations, finding labels, deviations, limitations, and evidence-state review pathway. |
Lock 1
Freezes the authority package, selectors, transformations, tolerance rules, equivalence rules, correction policy, binding rules, Reference Gate, and target-construction procedure before authority is audited.
Lock 2
Freezes the prediction, baseline, intervention, Quality Gate, metrics, success threshold, cost boundary, analysis plan, and failure conditions before comparative results are inspected.
Study 008 · Why the Reference Lock Matters
Study 008 found all required governed leaf values, but one required cross-source relationship failed the preregistered binding rule.
Because the frozen study prohibited normalization, semantic substitution, silent correction, and trademark removal for that relationship, the evaluator could not modify the authority package merely because the underlying entities appeared semantically related.
The experiment therefore stopped at the registered authority boundary rather than converting an upstream governance discrepancy into an apparent downstream model result.
Authority failures should not be represented as one generic error. The preregistration should distinguish the mechanism that prevented target construction.
A required authority surface or governed value cannot be obtained under the registered capture rules.
The registered selector or precedence rules produce more than one unresolved permitted authority candidate.
The authority package is accessible, but one or more preregistered target-critical values are absent.
Registered authority surfaces conflict beyond the tolerance permitted by the frozen Reference Contract.
Required values exist, but one or more preregistered cross-source relationships cannot be bound under the frozen rules.
The state can be identified but cannot be validly used under the registered rights, access, privacy, or authorization requirements.
Target-Construction Lock
The hidden target must be constructed only after the Reference Gate passes and only through the preregistered target-construction procedure.
The evaluator should preserve a versioned mapping from every target element back to its supporting authority source, selector, transformation, and binding rule so later quality decisions can be audited against the same state.
Anti-Repair Boundary
If a reference discrepancy would prevent a valid target under the frozen contract, do not resolve that discrepancy by asking the evaluated model to infer what the authority “probably meant.” Authority repair is a different research question and must be preregistered as a separate intervention if it is to be evaluated.
The principal preregistered authority, quality, model, or economic decision used to determine the confirmatory result.
Additional preregistered measures characterizing tradeoffs, mechanisms, authority boundaries, workload effects, costs, or supporting outcomes.
Patterns identified outside the frozen decision rule, including alternative authority interpretations or transformations that may motivate a later preregistered study.
Locked Confirmatory Sequence
Preregister → Freeze Authority → Capture → Reference Gate → Target Construction → Model-Visible Input → Execute Baseline / Intervention → Quality Gate → Measure Resources → Calculate Total Cost → Evaluate Reuse Economics → Result Record → Evidence-State Review
Authority outcome: Did the frozen Reference Contract permit construction of a valid target?
Model / quality outcome: Once a valid target existed, did the evaluated conditions satisfy the preregistered Quality Gate?
Economic outcome: Once reference and quality requirements passed, did the intervention produce the preregistered cost, reuse, frontier, or Compression Dividend result?
Amendment rule: Any change made after registration must preserve the original record, identify exactly what changed and when, explain why, and state whether affected work remains confirmatory, becomes exploratory, or requires a new evaluation. Changes to authority sources, selectors, equivalence rules, normalization, binding, correction policy, or target construction are material protocol changes—not clerical edits.
Preregistration integrity rule: The experiment must not change the reference to preserve the prediction, change the prediction to preserve the result, or change the result classification to preserve the theory.
Measurement Discipline
Every metric must have an operational definition, unit, source, collection procedure, aggregation rule, normalization rule, and known limitation. A metric name without these elements is not sufficient for reproducible comparison.
Select measures that correspond to the registered prediction and system boundary. Do not evaluate efficiency using a favorable single metric while excluding quality regressions, shifted work, failed runs, or material costs elsewhere in the system.
Upstream Measurement Definition
The companion page Measuring the Compression Dividend defines a proposed family of measurements for comparing governed reuse with matched recomputation. This protocol determines how a selected measurement should be preregistered, controlled, executed, and interpreted.
The distinction is deliberate: the measurement page defines the quantities; the Lab Evaluation Protocol governs the experiment; and the Robbie’s Razor Benchmarks provide the versioned implementation and result-record layer.
Did avoided recomputation exceed the complete cost of making valid reuse possible?
How many successful reuse events are required before cumulative avoided work recovers the preservation investment?
Does repeated valid reuse create a positive cumulative advantage after the full reuse-system cost is included?
How productively does computational work create accepted, validated, reusable task-relevant knowledge?
Measurement-definition boundary: These are proposed operational measurement concepts, not universal physical or economic equations. A formal evaluation must preregister the exact variables, units, cost boundary, quality threshold, observation period, allocation rules, uncertainty, and failure conditions used in the test.
| Measure Family | Possible Measures | Unit and Boundary Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | Acceptance rate, correctness, completeness, safety, usefulness, constraint compliance, schema compliance, memory fidelity. | Pass/fail, score, proportion, error count, severity class, or another registered unit tied to a defined rubric. |
| Tokens and Context | Input tokens, output tokens, cached tokens, retrieved context, tool-result context, and total processed tokens. | Tokens under a named tokenizer and model interface, reported by category rather than as an unexplained total. |
| Compute | Measured operations, accelerator time, utilization-adjusted device time, model-call duration, or a documented compute proxy. | FLOPs, accelerator-seconds, utilization-adjusted time, or named proxy. Tokens must not be presented as direct FLOP measurements. |
| Memory and Storage | Peak allocated memory, KV-cache size, stored-state size, index size, read/write volume, and retention period. | Bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, byte-seconds, or another explicitly defined unit and measurement point. |
| Latency and Duration | Time to first output, model latency, retrieval latency, verification time, correction time, and end-to-end completion time. | Milliseconds, seconds, or minutes with measurement start and stop points explicitly defined. |
| Retrieval and Tools | Queries, documents retrieved, bytes transferred, tool calls, failed calls, retries, execution time, and external-service charges. | Counts, bytes, duration, currency, or cost units under a named provider and pricing period. |
| Reusable State | Identity retention, relationship retention, provenance retention, constraint survival, version accuracy, retrieval success, eligible reuse, valid reuse, stale reuse, and re-derivation. | Field accuracy, proportions, rates, counts, or another fixture-defined unit tied to explicit reuse-eligibility rules. |
| Reuse Economics | Avoided recomputation, preservation overhead, retrieval overhead, verification cost, maintenance, repair, Net Reuse Benefit, break-even, and cumulative Compression Dividend. | Use a consistent declared resource unit. Different cost units must not be combined without a preregistered conversion method. |
| Failures and Retries | Rejected outcomes, timeouts, invalid outputs, constraint failures, tool failures, retries, corrections, and abandoned runs. | Counts, rates, severity, additional duration, and additional cost per attempted or accepted outcome. |
| Human Work | Review, verification, correction, escalation, labeling, coordination, and system-maintenance effort. | Person-minutes, person-hours, task counts, or documented financial cost. |
| Environmental Telemetry | Energy, cooling, water, carbon, or emissions measures when directly observed or supported by a defensible accounting model. | Named physical units with hardware, utilization, geography, energy supply, cooling design, allocation method, and observation boundary. |
A Compression Dividend evaluation requires more than observing that a memory system was used. The protocol should isolate a task class in which a previously resolved state is genuinely eligible for reuse and compare that treatment with a credible recomputation baseline.
Baseline
Require the system to reconstruct the required result from the permitted raw inputs without access to the reusable resolved state being evaluated.
Intervention
Permit the system to identify, retrieve, verify, and reuse the previously resolved state under the registered validity, provenance, and version controls.
Compression Dividend Quality Gate: Net Reuse Benefit, break-even, or cumulative savings should normally be interpreted only after the recomputation and reuse conditions satisfy the same preregistered acceptance threshold. Lower-cost stale, incomplete, incorrect, unsafe, or insufficiently verified reuse does not constitute a positive dividend.
Example Operational Accounting Structure
Net Reuse Benefit = Avoided Recomputation − Preservation − Retrieval − Verification − Maintenance − Repair
Status: Operational template only. The protocol must preregister the actual cost categories, unit, allocation rule, measurement period, exclusions, uncertainty, and treatment of one-time versus recurring cost.
Individual measurement statements should disclose how they were produced. Use the framework’s approved finding labels without treating the label itself as a formal evidence state:
Measurement-to-Evidence Path
Measurement Definition → Preregistered Metric → Matched Baseline → Controlled Intervention → Quality Gate → Total-Cost Calculation → Result Record → Evidence-State Review
Conversion boundary: A reduction in tokens does not automatically establish a reduction in FLOPs, KV-cache allocation, latency, energy, cooling, water, carbon, emissions, financial cost, or total system cost. Likewise, a positive Net Reuse Benefit measured in one unit does not establish a positive benefit in another. Each conclusion requires its own measurement or defensible calculation.
CEMR Dimension One
Within this protocol, compression means reducing the representation or processing burden of a task while preserving the information, relationships, provenance, constraints, and version state required for an accepted outcome.
Loss-aware boundary: Shorter context, fewer tokens, a smaller state object, or a more concise output is not automatically successful compression. If required information is lost, distorted, detached from provenance, or made harder to retrieve, the result may be truncation or information loss rather than useful compression.
Before measuring compression, define the required-information set for each task or fixture. Depending on the workload, this set may include:
| Measure | Operational question | Possible unit |
|---|---|---|
| Representation size | How much context, stored state, retrieved material, or output representation is used? | Tokens, bytes, fields, nodes, edges, documents, or records. |
| Required-element retention | How many preregistered required elements remain correct and usable after compression? | Count or proportion of required elements preserved. |
| Relationship preservation | Are dependencies, hierarchies, causal links, ownership, or other required relationships preserved correctly? | Correct edges, relation accuracy, or fixture-defined score. |
| Constraint survival | Do hard limits, exclusions, permissions, guardrails, and stop conditions survive the compressed representation? | Constraint retention rate, violations, or severity. |
| Redundancy | How much repeated or functionally duplicate representation appears within the registered boundary? | Duplicate fields, repeated facts, repeated retrievals, tokens, or bytes. |
| Retrieval burden | What work is required to recover the information needed for an accepted outcome? | Queries, documents, bytes, tool calls, latency, or cost. |
| Reconstruction burden | Must the system or a reviewer reconstruct information lost during compression? | Retries, correction steps, human minutes, model calls, or financial cost. |
| Accepted-outcome rate | Does the compressed representation still support outcomes that pass the same quality gate? | Accepted outcomes divided by attempted outcomes. |
Compression decision rule: A compression finding requires both a measurable reduction in the preregistered representation or processing burden and preservation of the information needed to pass the same quality gate. Otherwise, report the reduction and the associated loss as separate findings.
CEMR Dimension Two
Expression measures whether the system can convert registered inputs, compressed representations, and reusable state into an output or action that satisfies the intended task. The relevant expression may be an answer, structured record, tool sequence, code execution, retrieval request, decision, or other observable result.
Expression boundary: Concision is not the same as successful expression. A shorter answer or action sequence is favorable only if it preserves required meaning, satisfies the registered constraints, and passes the same acceptance procedure.
| Measure | Operational question | Possible unit |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome acceptance | Does the expressed output or action pass the registered quality gate? | Pass/fail, score, acceptance rate, or error severity. |
| Required-element coverage | Does the expression contain every required answer component, field, action, citation, or decision element? | Count or proportion of required elements present and correct. |
| Constraint compliance | Does the expression obey registered format, safety, permission, scope, length, tool, and stopping constraints? | Violations, violation rate, pass/fail, or severity. |
| Unsupported additions | Does the output add factual claims, sources, actions, or conclusions unsupported by the registered evidence? | Count, rate, or severity under a registered annotation rule. |
| Observable action count | How many model calls, tool calls, retrievals, executions, or externally visible steps are required? | Actions, calls, queries, executions, or state transitions. |
| Output burden | What observable representation is produced to complete the task? | Tokens, bytes, fields, records, lines of code, or actions. |
| Time to accepted expression | How long does the complete system take to produce an accepted result? | Milliseconds, seconds, or minutes with defined start and stop points. |
| Verification burden | What automated or human work is required to confirm the expression is acceptable? | Checks, tool calls, person-minutes, model calls, duration, or cost. |
| Correction burden | What work is required when the initial expression does not pass? | Retries, edits, additional calls, person-minutes, duration, or cost. |
Measure required-content coverage, factual support, constraint compliance, clarity, verification burden, and correction burden.
Validate schema, required fields, data types, identifiers, relationships, provenance, and downstream parseability.
Evaluate execution success, tests, side effects, permissions, retries, tool errors, and the accepted end state.
Evaluate evidence use, stated uncertainty, constraint compliance, required alternatives, and the registered decision standard.
Observable-evidence rule: The protocol does not need private chain-of-thought to evaluate expression. It can measure visible outputs, tool calls, stored state, retrieval behavior, execution results, verification records, corrections, and accepted outcomes.
Expression decision rule: Report changes in output size, action count, or completion time together with quality, unsupported additions, verification burden, and correction burden. A reduction in visible steps alone does not establish better expression.
CEMR Dimension Three
Memory is reusable state that preserves information needed by a later operation and makes that information available through a defined retrieval pathway. The evaluation must test both what is stored and whether the correct state can be recovered and used when required.
Memory boundary: A transcript, cache, vector store, summary, database, registry, or state object is not automatically useful memory. Its value depends on fidelity, provenance, version accuracy, constraint preservation, retrievability, reuse, access control, and total operating cost.
The stored state remains attached to the correct entity, task, user, system, record, or object.
Dependencies, links, hierarchy, ownership, and other required relationships remain correct.
The source, author, observation, transformation, and evidence history remain traceable where required.
Permissions, exclusions, limits, guardrails, and stop conditions survive storage and retrieval.
The system can distinguish current, historical, superseded, corrected, and conflicting state.
The correct state can be found at the appropriate time without unacceptable ambiguity or search burden.
| Measure | Operational question | Possible unit |
|---|---|---|
| Write fidelity | Is the required state recorded correctly when memory is created or updated? | Correct fields, write errors, field accuracy, or pass rate. |
| Retrieval precision | Of the state retrieved, how much is relevant and correctly associated with the request? | Precision, irrelevant records, or incorrect associations. |
| Retrieval recall | Of the required stored state, how much is successfully recovered? | Recall, missing records, or required-element recovery rate. |
| Constraint retention | Do permissions, hard limits, exclusions, and stop conditions survive writing, storage, retrieval, and reuse? | Retention rate, violation count, or severity. |
| Version correctness | Does retrieval return the correct version and distinguish superseded or conflicting state? | Version accuracy, stale-state rate, or conflict-resolution errors. |
| Collision resistance | Can the system distinguish near-identical names, identifiers, records, thresholds, or related entities? | Misassociation rate, collision errors, or fixture accuracy. |
| State survival | How well does required state persist across turns, steps, updates, or recursive depth? | Retention by step, turn, depth, duration, or update count. |
| Appropriate reuse | Is stored state reused when relevant and withheld when irrelevant, expired, unauthorized, or superseded? | Correct reuse, missed reuse, inappropriate reuse, or contamination rate. |
| Memory burden | What does the memory system require to construct, store, index, retrieve, verify, update, secure, and delete state? | Tokens, bytes, calls, duration, person-hours, energy, or financial cost. |
Privacy and lifecycle rule: Memory evaluation should include applicable access controls, retention limits, update rules, deletion behavior, confidentiality requirements, and the risk of state crossing an unauthorized user, task, project, or system boundary.
Memory decision rule: Report storage or retrieval reductions together with fidelity, provenance, constraint survival, version correctness, contamination, reconstruction burden, and total lifecycle cost. Stored data alone does not establish functional memory.
CEMR Dimension Four
Recursion is the repeated application of a process in which an output, decision, compressed representation, or preserved state becomes an input to a later operation. The evaluation asks whether required information and constraints remain usable as the system proceeds across turns, steps, cycles, branches, or recursive depth.
Recursion boundary: More recursion is not automatically better, and fewer steps are not automatically more efficient. A recursive process must be evaluated for accepted outcomes, state preservation, error propagation, stopping behavior, recovery burden, and total cost.
Before testing, document what constitutes a recursive step, what state passes between steps, when source material is available again, how branches are created or closed, and what ends the process.
The number of registered transformations, turns, cycles, or nested operations through which state must persist.
The exact output, summary, capsule, record, memory object, or other state supplied to the next operation.
When original source material, authoritative state, or another reference is reintroduced during repeated operations.
The observable conditions under which alternatives are opened, compared, revisited, merged, rejected, or escalated.
The condition that ends, pauses, rejects, or escalates the recursive process.
The registered limits on context, tokens, calls, time, storage, tools, human review, or other material resources.
| Measure | Operational question | Possible unit |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted outcome by depth | At which recursive depths does the system continue to pass the same quality gate? | Acceptance rate by step, turn, cycle, or depth. |
| State retention by depth | How well do required identity, relationships, provenance, constraints, and version state survive? | Required-element retention by depth or cycle. |
| Error propagation | Does an error remain local, get corrected, or propagate into later state and outputs? | Downstream errors, affected steps, severity, or propagation rate. |
| Constraint survival | Do hard limits, guardrails, exclusions, and stop conditions remain active across repeated operations? | Retention rate, first-failure depth, violations, or severity. |
| Observable branching | How many externally observable branches, alternatives, retries, or reversals occur? | Branches, calls, retries, reversals, or state transitions. |
| Rework burden | How much work is repeated because earlier state was incomplete, incorrect, ambiguous, or unavailable? | Repeated calls, repeated retrievals, duration, tokens, or cost. |
| Stopping compliance | Does the process stop, escalate, or continue according to the registered rule? | Correct stops, premature stops, overruns, or missed escalations. |
| Refresh effect | How does reintroducing authoritative source material affect retention, quality, and cost? | Change by cadence, refresh count, source tokens, latency, or cost. |
| Recovery behavior | Can the system recover from a detected error or state loss without violating constraints? | Recovery rate, steps, calls, duration, or cost. |
Recursive evaluations may compare source availability at every step, source availability only at initialization, or preregistered refresh schedules. These tests can help identify where additional source access improves retention and where it introduces added cost or interference.
Earlier depth-limited benchmark work found that refresh behavior varied with fixture structure. Collision-heavy and constraint-heavy tasks did not produce the same cadence pattern. Those observations are exploratory, version-specific, and fixture-dependent; they do not establish a universal optimal refresh schedule.
Recursion decision rule: Report quality, state retention, error propagation, stopping behavior, refresh burden, recovery, and total cost at the tested depths. Do not generalize stability beyond the registered depth, workload, state budget, cadence, model, or configuration.
Whole-System Accounting
Total-cost evaluation includes the material work and resources required to produce, verify, correct, preserve, and maintain an accepted outcome. It prevents a reduction in one component from being reported as system-level efficiency when cost has merely moved elsewhere.
Total included cost per accepted outcome = Total included cost across attempted trials ÷ Number of accepted outcomes
This normalization should supplement—not replace—raw totals, attempted-task cost, acceptance rate, variation, and workload-level reporting.
| Cost category | Include where material | Possible units |
|---|---|---|
| Input and context construction | Prompt creation, context assembly, document preparation, data transformation, state serialization, and intervention instructions. | Tokens, bytes, calls, duration, person-hours, or currency. |
| Model or compute calls | Primary generations, routing, auxiliary models, evaluators, embeddings, rerankers, controllers, and recovery calls. | Calls, tokens, accelerator time, compute proxy, duration, or currency. |
| Storage | Transcripts, reusable state, caches, registries, logs, artifacts, checkpoints, backups, and retention duration. | Bytes, byte-time, operations, duration, or currency. |
| Indexing | Parsing, chunking, embedding, graph construction, metadata generation, updates, and re-indexing. | Records, calls, tokens, duration, compute, or currency. |
| Retrieval | Queries, search, filtering, reranking, graph traversal, data transfer, and retrieval failures. | Queries, records, bytes, latency, compute, or currency. |
| Tool execution | API calls, code execution, browsing, database operations, external services, and resulting data transfer. | Calls, executions, duration, bytes, or currency. |
| Verification | Automated tests, source checks, schema validation, comparison models, expert review, and user acceptance. | Checks, calls, person-time, duration, or currency. |
| Human review | Evaluation, annotation, adjudication, oversight, escalation, approval, and exception handling. | Person-minutes, person-hours, tasks, or currency. |
| Correction | Editing, re-prompting, state repair, tool recovery, source replacement, and re-verification. | Edits, calls, person-time, duration, or currency. |
| Failed runs and retries | Timeouts, invalid results, tool failures, rejected outputs, restarts, abandoned runs, and recovery attempts. | Failures, retries, tokens, duration, compute, or currency. |
| Coordination | Multi-agent handoffs, orchestration, scheduling, synchronization, conflict resolution, and result merging. | Messages, calls, duration, person-time, or currency. |
| Infrastructure | Compute, networking, databases, observability, security, orchestration, idle allocation, and shared services. | Device-time, utilization, bytes, duration, energy, or currency. |
| Maintenance | Monitoring, updates, prompt maintenance, index refresh, registry repair, evaluation upkeep, and operational support. | Person-time, update count, duration, or currency. |
Total-cost rule: Do not call an intervention more efficient because it improves one favorable measure. A defensible conclusion must include the quality gate, all material cost categories within the registered boundary, and any uncertainty or missing costs that could alter the result.
Physical Measurement Boundary
Environmental findings require direct physical telemetry or a defensible accounting model tied to the registered system boundary. Changes in tokens, calls, latency, memory, or financial cost may motivate environmental measurement, but they do not independently establish energy, cooling, water, carbon, or emissions outcomes.
Never convert token savings directly into energy, cooling, water, carbon, or emissions savings.
| Environmental measure | Required evidence | Possible unit |
|---|---|---|
| Power | Device, host, rack, or facility telemetry with sampling interval, idle treatment, utilization, and allocation method. | Watts or kilowatts over a defined observation interval. |
| Energy | Measured or defensibly integrated power consumption associated with the registered workload and complete included system. | Joules, watt-hours, or kilowatt-hours. |
| Cooling | Facility cooling design, operating conditions, allocation procedure, utilization, and relevant efficiency measurements. | Energy, thermal load, or another defined physical measure. |
| Water | Direct facility water data or a documented model covering cooling technology, location, operating conditions, allocation, and applicable energy-supply water use. | Liters, gallons, withdrawal, or consumption under a defined boundary. |
| Operational emissions | Measured energy combined with a documented location- or market-based emissions factor matched to geography and observation period. | Grams or kilograms of CO2e. |
| Embodied impact | Hardware inventory, manufacturing or lifecycle data, expected service life, utilization, and disclosed allocation method where material. | Allocated CO2e, material mass, or another documented lifecycle unit. |
Device type, count, memory, host configuration, allocation, and any shared infrastructure included in the measurement.
Device utilization, idle allocation, batch size, concurrency, scheduling, and shared-workload treatment.
Facility location, observation period, grid conditions, energy procurement, and time-dependent emissions factors.
Air, evaporative, liquid, or other cooling design, facility efficiency, climate conditions, and water boundary.
Model execution, retrieval, storage, networking, tools, verification, retries, and other material components within the registered boundary.
How shared device, host, rack, facility, cooling, network, and embodied impacts are assigned to the evaluated workload.
| Available evidence | Permitted interpretation |
|---|---|
| No physical telemetry or accounting model | Environmental outcome is Unknown. Report only the directly observed computational or operational measures. |
| Device or host energy telemetry | A scoped operational-energy finding may be possible for the measured boundary. Cooling, water, carbon, and facility-wide effects remain separate questions. |
| Facility and cooling allocation | A broader operational finding may be calculated if the allocation method, uncertainty, location, and observation period are documented. |
| Energy plus matched emissions factors | A scoped operational-emissions estimate may be calculated, subject to the stated geography, time, procurement, and allocation assumptions. |
| Lifecycle and embodied-impact data | A broader lifecycle estimate may be possible when hardware inventory, service life, utilization, boundary, and uncertainty are included. |
For the broader environmental claim framework, see Environmental Impact & Computational Ecology.
Environmental decision rule: Report environmental conclusions only for the directly measured or defensibly calculated boundary. When hardware, utilization, batching, geography, energy supply, cooling design, allocation, or another material factor is unavailable, identify the affected conclusion as Unknown.
Observable Evidence Layer
Instrumentation should capture the observable events needed to reconstruct each trial, verify the registered boundary, calculate the selected metrics, identify failures, and distinguish measured behavior from inference.
The baseline and intervention must use equivalent logging procedures. If instrumentation adds material latency, storage, model calls, or compute, that overhead should be measured or disclosed.
Every attempted trial should have a stable evaluation ID, workload ID, task ID, arm assignment, configuration reference, start and end time, outcome status, quality decision, metric record, failure record, and link to the available evidence.
| Log family | Recommended fields | Boundary notes |
|---|---|---|
| Trial identity | Evaluation ID, task ID, attempt ID, arm, sequence position, repetition, seed, and parent-child trace relationships. | Identifiers should be stable without exposing protected user or customer information. |
| Configuration snapshot | Model, version, endpoint, system prompt, controller, decoding, context limit, tools, retrieval, memory, routing, and infrastructure references. | Use versioned records or checksums where full configuration text cannot be stored with the result. |
| Inputs and outputs | Registered input, supplied context, observable output, structured fields, completion status, token accounting, and truncation status. | Redact or reference protected content according to the registered privacy procedure. |
| Retrieval events | Query, index version, filters, returned identifiers, rank, scores, bytes, latency, and retrieval errors. | Record enough provenance to determine what evidence was available to each arm. |
| Tool and execution events | Tool name and version, request, response status, duration, side effects, errors, retries, and execution artifacts. | Sensitive arguments or results may require redaction, encryption, or restricted access. |
| Memory and state events | State written, retrieved, updated, superseded, rejected, expired, or deleted; version; provenance; permissions; and retrieval pathway. | The record should permit collision, stale-state, contamination, and constraint-retention analysis. |
| Observable recursion events | Step or cycle, depth, branch, refresh event, state passed forward, stop decision, escalation, recovery, and externally visible reversal. | Do not infer or claim hidden chain-of-thought from observable traces. |
| Quality and adjudication | Evaluator identity or system, rubric version, dimension scores, pass or fail decision, disagreement, adjudication, and correction burden. | Preserve blinding where preregistered and disclose where evaluator blinding was unavailable. |
| Resource and cost data | Tokens, calls, memory, storage, indexing, retrieval, tools, latency, verification, human work, retries, infrastructure, and maintenance allocations. | Identify the source, unit, calculation method, and missing categories. |
| Physical telemetry | Device, host, rack, facility, energy, cooling, water, geography, utilization, batching, and allocation fields when environmental claims are evaluated. | If telemetry is unavailable, the affected environmental conclusion remains Unknown. |
| Failure and deviation record | Timeouts, service failures, missing data, configuration drift, protocol deviations, safety stops, invalid trials, exclusions, and reasons. | Failed and excluded trials should remain traceable according to the preregistered procedure. |
Logging sufficiency rule: If missing, inconsistent, or asymmetric logs prevent verification of the registered prediction or system boundary, the affected finding should be marked Unknown or the evaluation classified as inconclusive or invalid according to the preregistered rule.
Experimental Design
The sample must be large and representative enough to evaluate the preregistered prediction at the required level of precision. There is no universal number of trials appropriate for every model, workload, metric, or evaluation design.
Sample size and repetition should reflect outcome variability, expected effect size, quality thresholds, acceptable uncertainty, task diversity, system stochasticity, and the consequences of an incorrect conclusion.
Where appropriate, run the same registered task under the baseline and intervention so task difficulty is matched across arms.
Repeat stochastic tasks enough times to characterize variation rather than relying on a favorable individual run.
Preserve workload classes, difficulty levels, context lengths, tool dependencies, or other registered subgroups in allocation and reporting.
Randomize or counterbalance trial order when time, load, caching, warm-up, or system drift could affect results.
For deterministic fixtures, register complete cases, boundary values, collisions, failure states, and expected outputs rather than relying only on random sampling.
Where feasible, reserve unseen tasks, later observation periods, or independent fixtures for confirmation beyond the development sample.
| Design field | Required decision |
|---|---|
| Sampling population | Define the task population, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, source, and intended scope of inference. |
| Sample size | Justify the number of tasks and repetitions using expected variability, precision, power, deterministic coverage, or another registered rationale. |
| Allocation | Specify paired, randomized, blocked, stratified, crossover, sequential, or other arm-allocation procedure. |
| Repetition and seeds | Register repetitions, seed handling, temperature or stochastic settings, and whether identical seeds can be meaningfully compared. |
| Trial order | Define randomization, counterbalancing, warm-up treatment, cache handling, and protection against time-dependent bias. |
| Subgroups | Register task classes, difficulty strata, context lengths, models, domains, or other subgroups that will be analyzed separately. |
| Stopping rule | Set completion, safety, futility, cost, missing-data, or sequential-analysis rules before results are observed. |
| Uncertainty reporting | Define confidence intervals, credible intervals, deterministic coverage, sensitivity analysis, or another appropriate uncertainty method. |
| Multiplicity | State how multiple metrics, comparisons, workloads, subgroups, or repeated looks at the data affect the decision rule. |
Sampling-integrity rule: Do not stop when the result becomes favorable, add repetitions only to one arm, discard unfavorable seeds, or redefine the confirmatory sample after inspection. Any deviation must be recorded and its effect on the evidentiary status disclosed.
Falsifiability and Stop Rules
Failure conditions must be defined before results are observed. They specify what would count against the prediction, what would invalidate the comparison, what requires the evaluation to stop, and what leaves the result inconclusive.
A protocol that cannot record failure cannot provide a credible empirical test.
The test was validly executed, but the intervention did not satisfy the preregistered quality, success, or total-cost decision rule.
A material protocol, boundary, implementation, data-integrity, or comparison failure prevents the registered question from being tested as designed.
A preregistered safety, privacy, cost, operational, or futility threshold requires trials to pause or end.
The evidence is insufficient, ambiguous, conflicting, too uncertain, or too incomplete to make the registered decision.
| Condition class | Examples | Required treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Quality-gate failure | The intervention falls below the correctness, safety, usefulness, constraint, schema, or memory-fidelity threshold. | Record the efficiency prediction as failed for that evaluation, even if resource use decreased. |
| Success-threshold failure | The primary metric does not reach the preregistered direction, magnitude, uncertainty, equivalence, or non-inferiority requirement. | Report the prediction decision without substituting a favorable secondary metric. |
| Total-cost failure | A local reduction is offset by intervention overhead, verification, correction, retries, human review, storage, or maintenance. | Report the local improvement and total-cost result separately. |
| State or recursion failure | Required identity, provenance, constraint, version state, or stopping behavior degrades beyond the registered threshold. | Record the first-failure condition, affected depth or task class, severity, and downstream consequences. |
| Boundary or configuration drift | Model, prompt, controller, tools, retrieval, workload, hardware, or acceptance rules change during the evaluation. | Pause, document the deviation, and determine whether affected trials require separation or a new evaluation. |
| Intervention-integrity failure | The intended Razor intervention was absent, inconsistently applied, or materially different from its registered version. | Do not interpret the result as a valid test of the registered intervention. |
| Baseline-integrity failure | The baseline is weakened, receives unequal access, or is subjected to materially different conditions. | Classify causal attribution as invalid unless the imbalance can be corrected through a registered procedure. |
| Evidence failure | Logs, telemetry, provenance, quality records, cost data, or task outcomes are missing or asymmetric. | Mark affected findings Unknown or the evaluation inconclusive or invalid, according to the registered rule. |
| Safety or privacy stop | Unauthorized access, sensitive-data exposure, unsafe execution, harmful side effects, policy breach, or uncontrolled external action occurs. | Stop affected trials, preserve appropriate evidence, contain the issue, and follow the registered incident procedure. |
| Insufficient precision | The observed uncertainty is too large to distinguish success, failure, equivalence, or material tradeoff under the decision rule. | Report the evaluation as inconclusive unless a preregistered continuation rule applies. |
Failed predictions, unfavorable tradeoffs, invalid trials, stop events, and inconclusive evidence should remain visible in the result record. They can identify boundary conditions, expose instrumentation gaps, improve later preregistration, and prevent unsupported generalization.
Classification rule: Prediction failure, invalid evaluation, stop condition, and inconclusive evidence are different outcomes. Record them separately and do not automatically convert any one of them into a formal evidence state until the registered evidence-state review is completed.
Reproducible Evaluation Output
Every completed evaluation should produce a versioned result record that connects the original preregistration to the observed data, calculations, findings, failures, deviations, and applicable evidence-state review.
The record should preserve favorable, unfavorable, mixed, failed, excluded, and unscorable outcomes. Summary language must remain traceable to the underlying trials and should not replace the raw or minimally processed evidence.
Claim or Question → Preregistration → Trials → Evidence → Findings → Replication → Evidence-State Review
| Record section | Required fields | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Record identity | Result-record ID, title, version, date, evaluator, organization, authorship, review status, and amendment history. | Creates a stable and attributable evaluation object. |
| Canonical relationship | Governing authority, claim-register reference, claim version, tested proposition, and applicable framework requirements. | Prevents a local result from silently redefining the canonical claim. |
| Preregistration | Registration ID, version, timestamp, prediction, primary outcome, quality threshold, success threshold, failure conditions, and analysis plan. | Separates confirmatory decisions from post-result interpretation. |
| Evaluation unit | System, version, configuration, workload, constraints, measurement period, evidence boundary, baseline, and intervention. | Defines the exact scope to which the result applies. |
| Sample and execution | Sample size, task classes, allocation, repetitions, seeds, order, dates, exclusions, early stops, and completed trials. | Shows how the registered design was executed. |
| Quality-gate results | Accepted, failed, corrected, excluded, and unscorable outcomes; dimension scores; adjudication; verification burden; and correction burden. | Determines whether resource comparisons qualify for efficiency interpretation. |
| CEMR results | Compression, expression, memory, and recursion measures, units, uncertainty, subgroup results, and first-failure conditions. | Preserves the four dimensions as separate measurable findings. |
| Total-cost results | Raw totals, cost categories, cost per attempt, cost per accepted outcome, allocation methods, excluded costs, and missing values. | Prevents local reductions from being mistaken for system-level efficiency. |
| Environmental results | Physical telemetry, calculation model, hardware, utilization, batching, geography, energy supply, cooling, allocation, units, and uncertainty. | Limits environmental conclusions to the measured or defensibly calculated boundary. |
| Failures and deviations | Prediction failures, invalid trials, stop conditions, missing data, protocol deviations, configuration drift, safety events, and corrective actions. | Keeps adverse and limiting evidence visible. |
| Finding statements | Atomic statement, finding label, supporting record, calculation or inference method, scope, uncertainty, limitation, and author. | Separates documented observations from calculations, inferences, proposals, and unknowns. |
| Decision and interpretation | Primary prediction decision, secondary results, exploratory observations, limitations, transfer restrictions, and alternative explanations. | Prevents exploratory interpretation from replacing the preregistered decision. |
| Replication and review | Code or asset references, replication status, independent reviewer, conflicts of interest, evidence-state recommendation, and unresolved questions. | Connects one evaluation to the broader evidence process. |
Result-record integrity rule: Preserve the original result record and add later corrections, replications, reviews, or evidence-state decisions as versioned updates. Do not silently overwrite an unfavorable or superseded result.
Statement-Level Classification
Finding labels describe how an individual statement in an audit or result record was produced. They help readers distinguish source-backed observations from calculations, interpretations, proposals, and unresolved questions.
Do not substitute informal confidence labels. Use only Documented, Calculated, Inferred, Proposed, or Unknown for individual finding statements.
Finding Label
The statement is directly supported by an identified source, log, record, observation, artifact, or measurement output.
Boundary: Documentation establishes that a record exists; it does not automatically establish that the record is complete, accurate, independently verified, or sufficient for a Supported claim.
Finding Label
The statement results from an explicit calculation applied to documented inputs using a disclosed formula, unit, allocation method, or transformation.
Boundary: Report assumptions, uncertainty, missing inputs, and whether the calculation is sensitive to allocation choices.
Finding Label
The statement is an interpretation derived from documented or calculated evidence rather than a directly observed fact.
Boundary: Identify the reasoning, competing interpretations, uncertainty, and evidence that could challenge the inference.
Finding Label
The statement presents a hypothesis, design, expected mechanism, prediction, target, recommendation, or future test that has not yet been established by the current evidence.
Boundary: A proposal should identify how it could be tested and what would count against it.
Finding Label
The available evidence does not support a reliable documented, calculated, or inferred statement within the registered boundary.
Boundary: Unknown is the correct label when telemetry, provenance, units, configuration, scope, or another required input is unavailable.
Statement: The smallest independently assessable observation, calculation, interpretation, proposal, or unknown.
Label: Documented, Calculated, Inferred, Proposed, or Unknown.
Support: Source, log, trial, formula, or evidence reference.
Scope: System, version, configuration, workload, constraints, and observation period.
Limitations: Missing data, uncertainty, assumptions, transfer limits, and alternative interpretations.
If one sentence combines a documented observation, a calculated change, and an inferred explanation, divide it into separate findings. Each component should receive its own label and supporting evidence.
| Combined statement to avoid | Separated findings |
|---|---|
| “The intervention used fewer output tokens and therefore reduced energy and improved efficiency.” | Documented: Output-token totals differed. Calculated: The registered percentage change in output tokens. Unknown: Energy change without direct telemetry or a defensible accounting model. Inferred or Unknown: Total efficiency, depending on quality and complete cost evidence. |
Separation rule: Finding labels classify individual statements. They do not assign the formal status of a canonical or empirical claim. A finding labeled Documented is not automatically a Supported claim.
Claim-Level Classification
Formal evidence states describe the current evidentiary status of a defined claim. They apply at the claim level, not to an isolated metric, observation, sentence, implementation, or audit finding.
Use only these formal evidence states: Proposed, Testing, Provisionally Supported, Supported, Challenged, Inconclusive, and Retired.
| Formal evidence state | Meaning | Decision boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed | The claim has been stated in a testable form but has not yet completed the evidence process required for support. | The claim should identify its scope, predictions, required evidence, and failure conditions. |
| Testing | A registered evaluation, replication, or evidence-collection process is actively examining the claim. | Starting a test does not imply that the expected result has occurred. |
| Provisionally Supported | Available evidence supports the claim under a defined scope, but material limitations, limited replication, boundary uncertainty, or unresolved questions remain. | The supporting system, workload, version, conditions, and limitations must remain visible. |
| Supported | The claim has met the governing evidentiary requirements under its stated scope, including applicable quality, protocol, reproducibility, and adverse-evidence review. | Supported does not mean universal, permanent, or transferable beyond the evaluated claim boundary. |
| Challenged | Credible evidence, replication failure, boundary failure, contradiction, or methodological concern materially conflicts with the claim or its present scope. | The challenge, supporting evidence, affected scope, and required resolution should be recorded. |
| Inconclusive | The available evidence is insufficient, ambiguous, mixed, conflicting, too uncertain, or methodologically incomplete for a support or challenge decision. | Inconclusive should identify what additional evidence or correction is required. |
| Retired | The claim is no longer active because it was withdrawn, superseded, merged, replaced, or removed from the current framework. | The historical record and reason for retirement should remain available where appropriate. |
| Finding labels | Formal evidence states | |
|---|---|---|
| Applied to | An individual observation, calculation, interpretation, proposal, or unknown. | A defined and versioned claim. |
| Question answered | How was this statement produced? | What is the claim’s current evidentiary status? |
| Examples | Documented, Calculated, Inferred, Proposed, Unknown. | Proposed, Testing, Provisionally Supported, Supported, Challenged, Inconclusive, Retired. |
| Automatic conversion? | No. A Documented or Calculated finding does not automatically create a formal claim decision. | No. State assignment requires the complete governing review process. |
Decision-authority rule: A favorable pilot, implementation, benchmark result, publication, license, or author-created evaluation does not independently confer the state Supported. Evidence-state changes must follow the governing claim-review process under GC-MRD-v2.0 and remain recorded in the Canonical Claims Register.
Reproducibility and External Review
Replication tests whether a result can be observed again under a registered relationship to the original evaluation. It checks whether the finding depends on one evaluator, dataset, implementation, measurement period, configuration, or undocumented condition.
Independence boundary: Tests, tools, examples, implementations, and analyses created by Robbie George or by a collaborating team should be identified as author-created or collaborative. They do not become independent replication merely because they use a new dataset or are published in a public repository.
Re-executes the original analysis using the same or preserved data, code, configurations, and result rules.
Tests: Whether the published or preserved result can be regenerated.
Repeats the registered claim with equivalent methods and boundaries using a new sample, later observation period, or independently executed trial.
Tests: Whether the result recurs under substantially equivalent conditions.
Tests the same underlying proposition using a different operationalization, implementation, or measurement method.
Tests: Whether the proposition survives a meaningful change in method.
Evaluates a new claim boundary involving another model, workload, domain, scale, language, or operating environment.
Tests: A new transfer proposition—not automatic replication of the original scope.
| Field | Required disclosure |
|---|---|
| Target claim | Exact claim, version, original scope, evidence state, and original result-record reference. |
| Replication type | Computational reproduction, direct replication, conceptual replication, or domain-transfer test. |
| Evaluator relationship | Authorship, funding, licensing, collaboration, implementation assistance, data access, conflicts of interest, and degree of independence. |
| Preserved elements | Prediction, primary metric, quality threshold, success threshold, failure conditions, and other elements held equivalent to the original evaluation. |
| Changed elements | Model, version, workload, sample, configuration, implementation, infrastructure, observation period, evaluator, or measurement method. |
| Replication prediction | Preregistered result expected if the original finding or transfer proposition holds. |
| Outcome comparison | Original and replication effects, quality, uncertainty, failures, costs, boundary differences, and alternative explanations. |
| Evidence-state implication | Whether the result supports continued testing, provisional support, support, challenge, inconclusive status, or another formal review—without assigning the state automatically. |
Replication-review rule: One consistent replication does not make a result universal, and one failed replication does not automatically retire a claim. Both favorable and unfavorable replications must be evaluated for integrity, scope, method, and boundary differences before the formal evidence state is reviewed.
Applicability Beyond the Original Test
A result is bounded by the system, version, configuration, workload, constraints, observation period, and evidence available in the original evaluation. Applying that result elsewhere creates a new transfer proposition that must be registered and tested.
Success in one model, workload, domain, scale, or environment cannot be generalized to another without a new test.
| Changed dimension | Examples | New question created |
|---|---|---|
| Model or architecture | Different provider, model family, parameter scale, architecture, modality, weights, or release. | Does the registered effect occur in the new model boundary? |
| Workload | Question answering, code, retrieval, planning, agent execution, classification, memory, or multimodal tasks. | Does the effect survive a different task structure and acceptance standard? |
| Knowledge domain | General knowledge, science, law, medicine, finance, ecology, operations, or proprietary enterprise data. | Do domain vocabulary, evidence, risk, and quality requirements change the result? |
| Language or modality | Another natural language, code language, image, audio, video, structured data, or mixed modality. | Does the implementation preserve quality and CEMR behavior in the new representation? |
| Scale and duration | Longer context, greater recursive depth, more users, higher concurrency, larger registry, or longer operating period. | Do retention, cost, latency, failure, and maintenance behavior remain acceptable at the new scale? |
| Tools and integrations | Different APIs, databases, retrieval systems, memory stores, controllers, or execution environments. | Does the effect remain when dependencies, failure modes, and tool costs change? |
| Operational environment | Research, production, edge, cloud, private deployment, real-time system, or human-in-the-loop workflow. | Do real-world constraints, infrastructure, review, and maintenance change the conclusion? |
| Risk and governance | Different safety, privacy, legal, regulatory, audit, or approval requirements. | Does the system meet the new quality gate and evidence requirements? |
The new evaluation meets its registered decision rule within the transferred boundary.
The result appears only in specified task classes, scales, configurations, or operating conditions.
The registered prediction does not pass under the new boundary.
Uncertainty, missing evidence, implementation differences, or protocol limitations prevent a reliable transfer decision.
Transfer rule: Calling the protocol architecture-agnostic means it can be applied across different architectures. It does not mean that a result obtained from one architecture automatically applies to another.
Protected Evaluation Boundary
AI labs may evaluate Robbie’s Razor using proprietary models, private workloads, confidential telemetry, protected customer data, or security-sensitive infrastructure. The protocol permits confidential execution, but privacy restrictions and evidence availability must be registered before testing.
Confidentiality changes who can inspect the evidence; it does not change the need for a defined system boundary, preregistration, quality gate, total-cost accounting, failure record, and reproducible decision process.
Collect only the inputs, outputs, telemetry, identifiers, and metadata required to answer the registered evaluation question.
Define whether evaluation data may be used only for the registered pilot or also for debugging, model improvement, publication, replication, or later research.
Identify who can access raw data, prompts, outputs, state, logs, configuration, telemetry, result records, and publication summaries.
Register how long data and derived state will be retained, how updates and legal holds are handled, and how deletion will be verified.
Document applicable encryption, secret handling, isolation, authentication, audit logging, incident response, and external-service restrictions.
Define who owns the raw data, code, configurations, derived results, finding statements, reports, and publication decisions.
| Field | Required decision |
|---|---|
| Data classification | Classify public, internal, confidential, restricted, personal, regulated, security-sensitive, or otherwise protected data. |
| Permitted processing | Identify approved models, regions, services, tools, storage systems, subprocessors, and human reviewers. |
| Prohibited processing | Identify disallowed external transfers, training use, retention, publication, cross-customer access, or reuse. |
| Redaction and pseudonymization | Define which identifiers, secrets, content, prompts, outputs, or logs must be removed or transformed before review. |
| Reviewer access | State whether an independent reviewer can inspect raw evidence, a protected environment, redacted records, aggregates, or only a summary. |
| Retention schedule | Set retention periods for raw data, logs, state, calculations, reports, backups, and reproducibility artifacts. |
| Incident procedure | Define containment, notification, evidence preservation, trial suspension, remediation, and reauthorization requirements. |
| Disclosure boundary | Specify which methods, aggregate results, limitations, conflicts, and evidence-state recommendations may be made public. |
When raw data or configurations cannot be released, the evaluation may preserve reproducibility through one or more controlled methods:
Reasoning-privacy rule: Private chain-of-thought is not required. Evaluators should use observable inputs, outputs, tool calls, stored state, retrieval behavior, execution results, telemetry, accepted outcomes, and other authorized evidence.
Confidentiality rule: Do not claim compliance with a law, regulation, security standard, or contractual requirement merely because privacy controls are described on this page. Applicable obligations must be identified and verified for the specific organization, data, jurisdiction, and evaluation.
Public Reproducibility Layer
The Robbie’s Razor Benchmarks repository is the public reproducibility layer for applicable benchmark code, controlled fixtures, schemas, documentation, and result assets.
The repository does not replace the Grand Compression Master Reference Document or the Canonical Claims Register. GC-MRD-v2.0 remains the governing authority, while GitHub preserves materials that help others inspect, reproduce, challenge, or extend an evaluation.
MRD → Claims Register → Auditor → Lab Protocol → Benchmark Hub → GitHub Assets → Result Record → Replication → Evidence-State Review
Public or private implementations of this protocol may preserve the following asset classes:
Prediction templates, system-boundary manifests, workload registrations, quality thresholds, failure conditions, and analysis plans.
Deterministic tests for identity, relationships, provenance, constraints, version state, collisions, retrieval, and recursive stability.
Versioned definitions for trials, configurations, logs, CEMR measures, total costs, failures, and environmental telemetry.
Scripts, tests, validators, calculation methods, environment records, dependency versions, and reproducible execution instructions.
Versioned records linking preregistration, trials, evidence, finding labels, failures, calculations, interpretations, and review status.
Replication registrations, preserved and changed conditions, outcome comparisons, deviations, negative results, and unresolved questions.
Robbie’s Razor: A Scale-Invariant Recursion Principle for Efficient Intelligence — Preprint v1.0, first publicly released January 1, 2026. The preprint provides technical and historical context; GC-MRD-v2.0 remains the current governing authority.
Repository-alignment rule: Presence in GitHub demonstrates publication or implementation—not effectiveness. Before treating any repository asset as current, verify its GC-MRD-v2.0 authority reference, finding-label enum, evidence-state enum, quality-gate fields, system boundary, CEMR measures, total-cost fields, failure conditions, domain-transfer restrictions, and environmental telemetry boundary.
Evaluation Pathway
A pilot should begin with a narrow, falsifiable question—not a broad promise of efficiency. Select one system boundary and one operationally meaningful workload where quality, state, resource use, failures, and total cost can be observed.
Diagnostic Question → Registered Prediction → Feasibility Pilot → Confirmatory Test → Result Record → Replication → Evidence-State Review
Step 1
Identify what operational decision the lab will make from the evaluation and which evidence is required to make it responsibly.
Step 2
Use the Razor Auditor framework to identify boundary gaps, quality risks, cost omissions, and candidate CEMR questions.
Step 3
Lock the system, version, configuration, workload, constraints, measurement period, evidence boundary, baseline, and intervention.
Step 4
Define primary and secondary metrics, units, quality threshold, success threshold, failure conditions, analysis plan, and missing-data procedure.
Step 5
Verify instrumentation, data access, quality adjudication, intervention integrity, privacy controls, cost capture, and operational safety.
Step 6
Separate pilot tuning from the confirmatory sample, preserve the registration, and execute the locked comparison.
Step 7
Report quality, CEMR, total cost, failures, deviations, finding labels, limitations, and the preregistered prediction decision.
Step 8
Seek reproduction or independent replication before extending the result to another model, workload, domain, scale, or environment.
The interactive Razor Auditor can help teams organize preliminary questions and identify evidence gaps. It is an experimental diagnostic interface—not certification, formal validation, or an evidence-state decision.
Organizations may use this public protocol independently or contact Robbie George to discuss a private, evaluation-only pilot. Commercial integration or licensing should follow—not replace—successful testing and appropriate review.
Contact Robbie GeorgePilot-status rule: Beginning a pilot does not imply endorsement, adoption, licensing, successful performance, compliance, certification, or a favorable evidence-state decision.
Protocol Questions
These answers summarize the protocol’s principal evidence, measurement, privacy, and claim boundaries.
No. The protocol does not assume that a Razor-guided implementation is more efficient or effective. It defines how that proposition can be tested under equivalent, preregistered conditions and permits favorable, unfavorable, mixed, failed, and inconclusive outcomes.
The required unit is System + Version + Configuration + Workload + Constraints + Measurement Period + Evidence Boundary. A material change to one of these elements may create a new evaluation unit.
No. A token reduction is one measured change. It does not establish total efficiency unless the intervention passes the same quality gate and all material costs—including construction, model calls, retrieval, tools, verification, correction, failures, retries, human review, infrastructure, and maintenance—are included.
Not automatically. Environmental conclusions require direct telemetry or a defensible accounting model that includes hardware, utilization, batching, geography, energy supply, cooling design, allocation, and measurement boundaries. Without that evidence, the environmental result is Unknown.
No. The protocol evaluates observable inputs, outputs, tool calls, stored state, retrieval behavior, execution results, telemetry, accepted outcomes, and authorized evidence. It does not require or claim access to hidden chain-of-thought.
Useful memory is reusable state that preserves relevant identity, relationships, provenance, constraints, version state, and retrieval pathways. A transcript, cache, vector store, summary, database, or registry is not automatically useful memory merely because it stores data.
A finding label—Documented, Calculated, Inferred, Proposed, or Unknown—describes how an individual statement was produced. A formal evidence state—Proposed, Testing, Provisionally Supported, Supported, Challenged, Inconclusive, or Retired—describes the current evidentiary status of a defined claim. A Documented finding is not automatically a Supported claim.
Yes. A lab may keep models, workloads, telemetry, and results confidential while preserving a time-stamped preregistration, controlled evidence, versioned result record, and appropriate review pathway. Confidentiality restrictions and unavailable evidence must be disclosed when conclusions are reported.
No. GitHub is a public reproducibility layer. Publishing code, fixtures, schemas, or results demonstrates implementation and access. Validation requires a registered evaluation, acceptable evidence, appropriate replication, and the separate formal evidence-state review.
No. A successful result remains limited to its registered boundary. Applying it to another model, version, workload, domain, scale, language, tool environment, or operating context creates a new transfer proposition that requires a new test.
The failure should remain in the result record with its affected workload, boundary, metrics, costs, and failure conditions. Failed predictions can reveal limits, improve later test design, and inform a Challenged or Inconclusive evidence-state review, but they should not be hidden or redefined after observation.
No. Completing the protocol produces a scoped evaluation record. It does not create certification or formal compliance unless a separate documented process, applicable requirements, authorized reviewer, and explicit decision exist.
Begin with one narrow diagnostic question, define the complete evaluation unit, select a fair baseline, register the quality gate and prediction, verify instrumentation through a feasibility pilot, and then run a locked confirmatory test. The Razor Auditor and Benchmark Hub can help organize the initial evaluation pathway.
Authorship and Framework Origin
Robbie George
Robbie George is a National Geographic–published nature photographer, author, and creator of the Grand Compression Cosmology, Robbie’s Razor, and the Razor Auditor evaluation framework.
His work examines how compression, expression, memory, and recursion can be described across reasoning, knowledge systems, ecology, and artificial intelligence. The Grand Compression Master Reference Document serves as the governing authority, while the Canonical Claims Register, Razor Auditor, this Lab Evaluation Protocol, and the Benchmark Hub define the public evaluation pathway.
His background in nature photography and ecological observation informs the system-level perspective of the work while remaining separate from the empirical testing required for technical claims about AI systems.
Author-and-validation disclosure: Robbie George is the originator of Robbie’s Razor and the associated evaluation framework. Author-created tools, examples, implementations, benchmark fixtures, and evaluations should be distinguished from independent testing and replication. Authorship does not itself establish that a technical claim is Supported.
Razor Evaluation Protocol · Document version 2.0 · Governing authority: GC-MRD-v2.0
This is only visible to you because you are logged in and are authorized to manage this website. This message is not visible to other website visitors.
Click on any Image to continue
This means you can use the camera on your phone or tablet and superimpose any piece of nature art onto a wall inside of your home or business.
To use this feature, Just look for the "Live Preview AR" button when viewing any piece of nature art on this website!
Join the collector list for your first-order discount, new wildlife releases, and occasional field notes.
