Weak signal
- Dimension inferred but not stated.
What this question asks
Part 1 of 4 - Permitted Purpose.
Section 41 lists four qualifying dimensions: function, performance, reliability, and quality. Every claimed component must improve at least one. The question is whether your commit messages or issue scope explicitly name the dimension targeted, not whether a reader could infer it.
Why it is on the rubric
Statute: 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(B)(ii) and § 41(d)(3).
This question implements Permitted Purpose from 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(B)(ii) and § 41(d)(3). The binder scores every claimed business component against this question and pairs the answer with cited evidence from your repositories.
Evidence the binder accepts
These are the artifact types the binder ingests to answer this question for a given business component.
- Commit subject lines (Conventional Commits scope tags help)
- Benchmark and load-test results
- Automated test results and coverage reports
- Service-level agreements and uptime measurements
What weak vs strong evidence looks like
Weak evidence does not disqualify the component on its own; the binder will flag the gap and ask for a stronger artifact if one exists.
Strong signal
- Targeted dimension named in commit messages or issue scope.
Other rubric questions under Permitted Purpose
All questions under Part 1 (Permitted Purpose) score the same business component:
Get documentation built to survive an exam
R&D Binder answers all 11 rubric questions for every claimed business component, with PR-number evidence and an audit-defense flag review.