Weak signal
- No reference to any underlying principle.
What this question asks
Part 2 of 4 - Technological in Nature.
Showing you applied a CS subdomain is not enough; you need to cite a specific algorithm, data structure, or protocol from it. 'We used Raft for consensus' is strong evidence; 'we built a distributed system' is not.
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.
- In-code comments naming principles or rationale
- Design documents (internal)
- Library and framework selection rationale
- Academic or vendor papers cited in 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 algorithm, data structure, or protocol named with rationale.
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.