problem-validation

Validating research question novelty and feasibility requires adversarial questioning and multi-agent deliberation to assess scientific significance and practical viability before any method design begins. This structured workflow applies novelty litmus tests and data checks to produce a go/no-go verdict.

Adversarial deliberation for research question vetting is a multi-agent process where a Senior Professor, Journal Editor, and Research Scientist evaluate scientific significance, editorial viability, and practical feasibility. They apply stepwise refinement to converge on a Phase 2 verdict with actionable improvements.

Checking venue suitability involves engaging a Journal Editor agent during multi-agent deliberation to assess editorial viability against target publication standards. The workflow evaluates venue fit alongside novelty and feasibility to determine if the question should proceed to Phase 3.

Failing research question validation returns actionable improvements and a re-entry path to revert to Phase 1 for refinement. If consensus cannot be reached during deliberation, escalation options are available to help resolve disagreements and guide the question forward.

Multi-agent validation is needed when rigorous Phase 2 vetting is required for novel questions before committing resources to method design. It provides adversarial questioning that tests assumptions and feasibility more thoroughly than individual review, producing a structured go/no-go decision.

After passing Phase 2 validation, the research question receives a go verdict and proceeds to Phase 3 for method design. The workflow records actionable guidance from the Senior Professor, Editor, and Research Scientist to inform the next phase of research development.