Weak signal
- Goal restated as the uncertainty (we wanted to build X).
What this question asks
Part 3 of 4 - Elimination of Uncertainty.
Technical uncertainty must be specific and articulable. 'We wanted to build X' restates the goal, not the uncertainty. 'We did not know whether approach A or approach B would meet our 99.9 percent uptime SLA given our partition profile' is real uncertainty.
Why it is on the rubric
Statute: 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(a)(3).
This question implements Elimination of Uncertainty from 26 U.S.C. § 41(d)(1)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(a)(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.
- Design documents (internal)
- Spike tickets opened to investigate open questions
- Research notes in shared docs or wikis
- Slack and chat threads where uncertainty was discussed
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 technical question with multiple plausible resolutions stated up front.
Other rubric questions under Elimination of Uncertainty
All questions under Part 3 (Elimination of Uncertainty) 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.