Weak signal
- Mix of cosmetic-looking and substantive commits with no separation.
What this question asks
Part 1 of 4 - Permitted Purpose.
Cosmetic and stylistic improvements are out of scope, but they often share file paths with qualifying work. This question checks whether the binder has separated them cleanly. Mixed clusters with no separation fail Part 1 even when most of the work is qualifying.
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 diffs (file paths only by default)
- File paths touched per commit
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
- Cosmetic commits explicitly carved out and excluded from QRE.
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.