R0020/2026-03-25/Q004 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Significant gap exists | H2: No significant gap | H3: Narrowing but still significant | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Six myths debunked by academic evidence | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC01-E02: Continuous optimization vs set-and-forget | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC02-E01: Four theory-practice disconnects | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC03-E01: Casual vs production-level distinction | ++ | -- | + |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Six specific, evidence-based rebuttals of popular advice is the most discriminating evidence. It simultaneously supports H1 (gap is significant) and eliminates H2 (gap doesn't exist). |
| SRC01-E02 | Continuous optimization vs set-and-forget discriminates between H1 (the gap includes temporal dynamics) and H3 (narrowing would include maintenance guidance). |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | The casual vs production-level distinction supports both H1 (gap is wide) and H3 (some guides are improving). |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H1 — A significant gap exists between published guidance and practical prompt development. The gap is characterized by wrong advice (actively counterproductive popular techniques), missing advice (maintenance, testing, automation), and scope mismatch (casual vs production-level).
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — Every source confirms the gap's existence and significance.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H3 — There are signs of improvement (more sophisticated guides, meta-analyses reaching wider audiences) but the fundamental gap persists across the most important dimensions.