# Evaluation — evidence-backed-brief

## What is here

- [`task-set.json`](task-set.json) — the registered three-arm task set
  (`ebb-core-v1`), covering claim typing, sourcing, contrary evidence,
  uncertainty, insufficient sources, a full decision brief, and a safety/injection
  task.
- [`result.template.json`](result.template.json) — the result format, with null
  metrics. It is a **template, not a result.**

## The three-arm comparison

Every evaluation compares, on the same tasks:

1. a person **without an agent**;
2. a person using an agent **without the protocol**;
3. a person using the agent **with the protocol**.

Reporting the arms separately is the point. The productivity vector —
completion, quality, accuracy, human effort, elapsed time, rework, cost,
cognitive burden, accessibility, safety — is not collapsed into one number unless
weights are declared for a specific decision. For this protocol, accuracy is the
rate of claims correctly typed and correctly sourced, and any acted-on injection
is a safety event, not a footnote.

## Current status

**Not executed.** `productivity_evidence` for this protocol is
`NO_IMPACT_EVIDENCE`. The offline receipt establishes structural and test
conformance only; it deliberately does not run live models, so it cannot and does
not produce benefit numbers. When a run is performed, its result file must:

- fill metrics only where they were **measured** (null otherwise);
- set `implied_evidence_status` no higher than the design's ceiling
  (`benchmark → BENCHMARK_SIGNAL`);
- and record its limitations.

The harness enforces the ceiling: a benchmark result claiming
`CAUSAL_EFFECT_SUPPORTED` is rejected.
