Weak signal
- Unclear; assumed because no one wrote it down.
What this question asks
Part 3 of 4 - Elimination of Uncertainty.
Uncertainty has to be held by a person or team, documented as such. An after-the-fact reconstruction ('we must have been uncertain because we ended up exploring') is weaker than a contemporaneous note from a named engineer asking the open question.
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.
- Meeting notes naming the holder of the uncertainty
- Named design-doc authors and owners
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
- Named engineer or team is documented as the holder of the open question.
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.