Weak signal
- Answer was in vendor docs and a contractor read them.
What this question asks
Part 3 of 4 - Elimination of Uncertainty.
If the answer was in vendor docs or a published paper, the work was application, not research. This question separates qualifying R&D from routine engineering. A consultant who already knew the answer does not create Section 41 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.
- Engineering search history (informal)
- Vendor and library documentation
- Vendor documentation reviewed
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
- No single public source resolved the question; required combinatorial design work.
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.