Back to dashboard
Headline result
4 / 22 (18.2%)
Method & source Mean Reciprocal Rank Voorhees (1999), TREC-8 QA Report

## Read in detail

Each card opens its own page. The headline and charts above are all you need at a glance; the cards are for the why and how.

### Aggregate

This is the worst-performing class baseline by a wide margin.

Read details →

### The 4 Wins

All four wins are explainable by literal-substring or prefix-token matching, not by synonym lookup. The synonyms table may not be contributing to these results at all.

Read details →

### The 18 Misses

Every miss is a literal-token match against a deeper path that happens to contain the query word. The canonical CoreX framework is either far down the ranking (rank 2-7) or absent from the top-10 entirely.

Read details →

### What This Baseline Says

The framework_aliases table exists in the schema and contains 22 rows with a populated synonyms column (verified directly via SELECT identifier, synonyms FROM framework_aliases WHERE synonyms IS NOT NULL).

Read details →

### Possible Future Directions (out of Scope for This Audit)

Following the feedback_code_changes_as_ideas_for_future rule, three candidate paths, in increasing complexity:

Read details →

### Implications for Criterion 2 (anti-hallucination)

For the AI agent consumer: if the agent issues a bare NFC query expecting the CoreNFC framework reference, it gets an authentication-services deep page instead.

Read details →

### Method Recap

22 (synonym, canonical_URI) pairs, all drawn from framework_aliases.synonyms rows in the v1.2.0 candidate DB (excluding data and text as too-generic).

Read details →

### Combined Phase 1 Baseline Coverage on V1.2.0

Five of eight Phase 1.x classes from §1.4 now have documented baselines. Three remain: G (prose), H (symbol-attribute), Phase 1.7 (anti-hallucination agent-end-to-end).

Read details →

## Sources cited in this measurement

Every metric and method this audit relies on, with a link to the foundational source. Auto-collected from the audit text.

### Mean Reciprocal Rank

Voorhees (1999), TREC-8 QA Report

Open citation

### Reciprocal Rank Fusion (k=60)

Cormack, Clarke, Büttcher (2009), SIGIR

Open citation

### P@k (Precision at k)

Manning, Raghavan, Schütze (2008) IIR §8.4

Open citation