Narrative Blueprint (`arXiv:2610.28380` Reference Architecture)

This reference defines the structural, rhetorical, and quantitative blueprint for empirical AI systems preprints modeled after arXiv:2610.28380 (Object-Oriented Harness: Evolving Agent Harnesses through Object-Oriented Design).

---

1. Macro-Structure & Pacing

An empirical systems preprint must progress through six numbered sections, followed by Limitations, Author Contributions, References, and two structured Appendices:

Section	Target Length	Core Rhetorical Function	Required Visual / Quantitative Anchor
Abstract	150–220 words (1 paragraph)	State the object of study, the methodological confound in prior work, the proposed framework, evaluation scope, and exact headline metrics.	Inline ratios ($\text{SIR} = 100.0%$, $\text{FVR} = 1.00$, $4.23\times$ speedup).
1 Introduction	4–5 paragraphs + 3 bullets	Motivate the operational problem, expose why static/global conventions fail, introduce the isolated conditions, and list 3 contributions.	Figure 1: Three-panel paradigm comparison (a), (b), (c).
2 Related Work	2 subsections (2–3 paragraphs)	Situate prior agent harnesses/representations (2.1) and evaluation benchmarks/telemetry (2.2).	Explicit contrast showing how this paper resolves an unmeasured confound.
3 Method	5 subsections (3.1–3.5)	Formalize the execution trajectory tuple, matrix isomorphism, normalized equations, oracle mechanics, and velocity telemetry.	Figure 2: Multi-stage pipeline architecture + numbered equations.
4 Experiments	4.1 Setup + 4.2 Main Results	Define orthogonal benchmark domains, comparators, model pinning, and present the master Cross-Domain Mean scoreboard (Table 1).	Table 1: Master Cross-Domain Mean scoreboard with ↑/↓, bold, \underline, and per-domain breakdowns in Appendix C when $> 10$ rows.
5 Analysis	5.1 Ablations + 5.2 Case Studies + 5.3 Audit	Explain why the mechanism works: velocity vs. deliberation trade-off, cross-model/harness invariance, and root-cause defect traces.	Table 2 & Figure 3 (Velocity Paradox), Table 3 (Invariance), Table 4 (Case Studies).
6 Conclusion	1 paragraph	Synthesize the causal findings and state a direct operational prescription for engineers.	Summary of key ratios.
Appendices A–C	2–3 appendices	Document exact model routing/CLI details (Appendix A), validation oracle specifications (Appendix B), and per-domain evaluation tables (Appendix C).	Reproducible CLI/SDK configuration details & full domain scoreboards.

---

2. Table Design & Quantitative Presentation Standards

1. Directional Indicators (↑ / ↓): Every metric column header in every table must specify whether higher (↑) or lower (↓) values are better (for example, Score (%) ↑, PASS (%) ↑, Turns (K) ↓, Latency (s) ↓, Total Tokens ↓).
2. Visual Hierarchy & Main-Body Table Economy (Section 4.2 vs. Appendix C):
   • Bold (**100.0** / [*100.0%*]) marks the best-performing cell in each domain block.
   • Underline / Italics (\underline{26.71} / *26.71* / [#underline[26.71s]]) marks the runner-up among passing configurations.
   • Cross-Domain Mean Summary in Section 4.2: Always present a Cross-Domain Mean summary aggregating all evaluated domains so readers can compare conditions globally at a glance. When evaluating multiple domains across many checkpoints ($> 10$ total rows), keep only the Cross-Domain Mean summary table (Table 1) in Section 4.2 and move the per-domain breakdowns (Tables C.1–C.k) to Appendix C to prevent main-body table clutter.
3. Root-Cause Case Study Table (Table 4):
   • Never stop at aggregate pass rates. Always include a qualitative-to-quantitative trace table with columns: Domain | Unassisted Failure Mode | Root Cause of Prompt Failure | Deterministic Oracle Diagnostic (Turn k) | Self-Correction Action (Turn k+1).