32 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
32 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
|
# Task 7: Define positive impact metrics
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Plan**: measure-positive-impact
|
||
|
|
**Status**: DONE
|
||
|
|
**Deliverable**: New section in `impact-methodology.md`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## What to do
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Add a "Positive Impact" section to `impact-methodology.md` defining
|
||
|
|
proxy metrics:
|
||
|
|
- **Reach**: number of people affected by the output.
|
||
|
|
- **Counterfactual**: would the result have been achieved without
|
||
|
|
this conversation? (none / slower / not at all)
|
||
|
|
- **Durability**: expected useful lifetime of the output.
|
||
|
|
- **Severity**: for bug/security fixes, severity of the issue.
|
||
|
|
- **Reuse**: was the output referenced or used again?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. For each metric, document:
|
||
|
|
- How to estimate it (with examples).
|
||
|
|
- Known biases (e.g., tendency to overestimate reach).
|
||
|
|
- Confidence level.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Add a "net impact" formula or rubric that combines cost and value
|
||
|
|
estimates into a qualitative assessment (clearly net-positive /
|
||
|
|
probably net-positive / uncertain / probably net-negative / clearly
|
||
|
|
net-negative).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Done when
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- The methodology document covers both sides of the equation.
|
||
|
|
- A reader can apply the rubric to their own conversations.
|