2/2
Repeated runs identical
Same fixture, same complete read model.
Original Evidence · Reproducible Benchmark
ProjectOps360 Evidence & Benchmarks
Product evidence should show what the system actually does — and what it does not prove. This benchmark runs controlled Friction Radar v1 evidence through the product read-model contracts and publishes the result, fixture description and limitations.
Measured result
5/5 controlled evidence checks passed
Version 2026-08-23. Controlled deterministic code-level benchmark of Friction Radar v1 evidence handling. This is not a customer-outcome, recall, precision, or latency benchmark.
1/1
Foreign-project signals excluded
Critical evidence from another project did not leak into the scoped result.
1/1
Expected explicit clusters
Only signals sharing the explicit entity were correlated.
0
Unvalidated global scores published
Global score and severity remain null in Friction Radar v1.
0/8
Category aggregate scores published
No category aggregation is presented before validation.
8
Defined friction categories
Process, resource, dependency, schedule, cost, risk, decision, and quality.
Control-by-control evidence
Every published result has an explicit expectation
Deterministic read model
PASS- Measured
- 2/2 repeated runs identical
- Expected
- 2/2 repeated runs identical
- Evidence rule
- The same controlled signal fixture is evaluated twice and the complete read model is compared byte-for-byte after JSON serialization.
Cross-project isolation
PASS- Measured
- 1/1 foreign-project signal excluded
- Expected
- 1/1 foreign-project signal excluded
- Evidence rule
- The fixture contains one critical signal from another project. The read model must retain only signals scoped to the requested organization and project.
Explicit-entity cluster specificity
PASS- Measured
- 1/1 expected cross-category cluster
- Expected
- 1/1 cluster from the shared entity only
- Evidence rule
- Dependency and decision signals share one task and should correlate. An unrelated schedule signal must remain outside that cluster.
No unvalidated aggregate score
PASS- Measured
- 0 global and 0/8 category aggregate scores published
- Expected
- 0 global and 0/8 category aggregate scores published
- Evidence rule
- Friction Radar v1 intentionally keeps global severity/score and category aggregation null until an aggregation policy is validated.
Honest empty state
PASS- Measured
- 0 signals; score=null; severity=null; trend=unknown
- Expected
- 0 signals; score=null; severity=null; trend=unknown
- Evidence rule
- With no scoped evidence, the model must not manufacture a score, severity, trend, or cluster.
Reproducibility
The benchmark can be inspected from fixture to result
The controlled fixture contains 3 in-project signals and 1 foreign-project signal. Two signals share an explicit entity, one signal is unrelated, and the read model is executed 2 times for determinism checking.
Evidence chain
Controlled events
↓
Friction signals with evidence refs
↓
Scoped Friction Radar read model
↓
Expected-control assertions
↓
Public JSON + stated limitations
What this benchmark does not claim
Controlled evidence is not a substitute for field validation
The benchmark uses a controlled synthetic fixture so expected behavior is known in advance.
It does not measure real-world precision, recall, false-positive rate, causal accuracy, model quality, or customer outcomes.
It does not compare ProjectOps360 against third-party products.
Passing these controls demonstrates deterministic evidence handling and governance behavior for the tested Friction Radar v1 contracts only.
Evidence standard
ProjectOps360 separates evidence from interpretation
Product evidence is strongest when a reader can distinguish what was observed, what was inferred, what is only predicted, and what remains unknown. The benchmark follows the same discipline used by Project Friction Intelligence.
Observed
Direct output or event-backed fact produced by the controlled fixture.
Inferred
Interpretation supported by evidence, but not presented as automatic proof of cause.
Predicted
Forward-looking exposure that must stay labeled as prediction rather than fact.
Unknown
Missing evidence stays unknown instead of being silently converted into a score.
FAQ
Evidence benchmark questions
What does this ProjectOps360 benchmark prove?
It demonstrates the tested Friction Radar v1 contracts for deterministic read-model generation, project isolation, explicit-entity correlation, restraint around unvalidated aggregate scores, and honest empty-state behavior.
Does this benchmark prove real-world AI accuracy?
No. The benchmark is intentionally controlled and synthetic. It does not measure real-world precision, recall, false-positive rate, causal accuracy, model quality, or customer outcomes.
Can the benchmark be independently inspected?
The measured result and its stated methodology are published as machine-readable JSON. The implementation repository is private, so this page does not claim that the source code or regression test is publicly accessible.
Why does ProjectOps360 publish null aggregate scores in this benchmark?
Friction Radar v1 deliberately avoids publishing a global friction score, global severity, or category aggregate score until an aggregation policy has been validated. Missing validation is represented honestly rather than replaced with a fabricated number.
ProjectOps360
From evidence to execution intelligence.
Process Mining reconstructs what happened. Friction Radar surfaces evidence-backed friction. Living Graph shows what the problem can affect next.