R0020/2026-03-25/Q001 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Substantial mature ecosystem | H2: No meaningful frameworks | H3: Emerging but immature | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Six dedicated testing frameworks | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC01-E02: Non-determinism and subjectivity challenges | - | N/A | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Seven frameworks, six quality dimensions | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC02-E02: Testing-to-production gap | -- | N/A | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: Three-tier testing methodology taxonomy | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC03-E02: Unsolved challenges (unpredictability, scalability) | - | N/A | ++ |
| SRC04-E01: Golden datasets, noise mitigation, CI/CD | + | -- | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E02 | Testing-to-production gap is uniquely diagnostic: it strongly supports H3 while strongly contradicting H1. A mature ecosystem would not have this systemic failure mode. |
| SRC04-E01 | The need for 3-5 trials with confidence intervals discriminates between H1 (mature) and H3 (emerging) by revealing the statistical nature of prompt evaluation. |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Tool existence supports both H1 and H3; does not discriminate between them |
| SRC02-E01 | Quality dimensions support both H1 and H3 equally |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — Testing tools exist but the field is emerging, with fundamental challenges (non-determinism, testing-to-production gap, statistical rather than deterministic verification) that prevent characterization as a mature ecosystem.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — Multiple dedicated tools with CI/CD integration, regression testing, and structured evaluation eliminate the "no meaningful frameworks" hypothesis.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Tools exist (supporting partial credit) but the acknowledged limitations and systemic gaps prevent full support.