RFR-2026-010: Systematic boundary and practitioner study

Research opportunity

Test the integrated-profile boundary with a systematic evidence map and independent practitioner judgments.

Background

The boundary REP is strong for targeted comparison but did not conduct a systematic review, bibliometrics, or practitioner survey.

Origin documents and trace

• research/evaluations/FE-BOUNDARY-2026-07-28/RP-FE-BOUNDARY-2026-07-28.md, section: Limits of method; F4-F6
• research/evaluations/FE-BOUNDARY-2026-07-28/comparison-matrix.md, section: comparison dimensions
• research/evaluations/FE-BOUNDARY-2026-07-28/source-registry.md, section: source coverage

Specific assumption challenged: The ten selected comparators cover the strongest adjacent explanations.

Supporting evidence: The REP explicitly limits its method and finds every current mechanism collectively covered.

Unknowns

• Whether relevant adjacent fields were missed
• Practitioner-recognized boundary
• External examples of equivalent integration

Dependencies

• None; can begin immediately.

Suggested REP and methodology

Create REP-2026-010. Publish search protocol and inclusion criteria; snowball across adjacent fields; conduct blinded concept sorting and interviews with practitioners outside the repository.

Expected outputs

• Systematic evidence map
• Bibliometric overlap map
• Practitioner judgment dataset

Success criteria

Search and coding are independently reproducible and include disconfirming cases.

Execution recommendation

• Recommended agent: systematic-review agent
• Estimated effort: high
• Expected knowledge gained: Tests whether the recommended profile boundary is externally legible and complete.
• Frontier Score: 246
• Score inputs: knowledge gain 4/5; impact 4/5; cross-project reuse 4/5; scientific importance 4/5; dependency cost 5/5; implementation difficulty 5/5.
• Score calculation: 4 × 4 × 4 × 4 − 5 − 5 = 246.
• Score status: structured expert judgment, not measured utility.