rb-research-question-gate

To validate research novelty, audit your proposed ideas against existing literature and prior art to identify duplicates or near-misses. This structured gatekeeping process enforces a formal Stop, Revise, or Proceed decision based on measurable criteria and falsifiability before any code is written.

A research gap matrix defines technical novelty and scientific validity by mapping problem statements against domain constraints. You need it during the pre-implementation phase to establish falsifiers and determine if your scientific hypothesis is already a well-documented baseline.

To audit prior art, input your structured problem statements and domain constraints to systematically compare your proposed algorithm against existing literature. This determines whether to stop, revise, or proceed with development, saving weeks of potentially redundant engineering effort.

Yes, you can use this gatekeeping process for any scientific hypothesis requiring technical novelty auditing. It requires structured input of problem statements and domain constraints to evaluate scientific validity and determine whether to stop, revise, or proceed.

Automated novelty auditing limitations depend on the structured input of problem statements and domain constraints provided. It operates strictly within the pre-implementation phase and cannot evaluate post-development results or replace empirical scientific validation of the implemented research.