Weak signal
- Generic 'we wrote code'.
What this question asks
Part 2 of 4 - Technological in Nature.
Section 41 requires reliance on a hard-science discipline. For software, that is computer science. But 'computer science' alone is too broad; the binder needs to name the specific subdomain - distributed systems, NLP, cryptography, compilers, etc.
Why it is on the rubric
Statute: 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(B)(i).
This question implements Technological in Nature from 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(B)(i). 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.
- Documented tech stack (README, ARCHITECTURE)
- Design documents (internal)
- Named algorithms in code comments or design docs
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
- Specific computer-science subdomain (e.g., distributed systems, IR, NLP, compilers).
Other rubric questions under Technological in Nature
All questions under Part 2 (Technological in Nature) 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.