clinical-reasoning-benchmark-v0.2 / capability_framework.md
ClarusC64's picture
Create capability_framework.md
4b84361 verified

Capability Framework

This benchmark evaluates clinical reasoning quality across nine structured tasks.

The benchmark does not focus on diagnosis.

It focuses on whether a model can reason about stability, trajectory, boundary pressure, recovery, and intervention choice.

Capability Domains

State Reasoning

Dataset:

  • clinical-compensation-vs-recovery-v0.2

Tests whether a model can distinguish visible stability from true recovery.

Core distinction:

  • stable because recovered
  • stable because supported

Trajectory Reasoning

Datasets:

  • clinical-silent-failure-v0.2
  • clinical-trajectory-awareness-v0.2

Tests whether a model can distinguish current appearance from direction of movement.

Core distinctions:

  • mild-looking but worsening
  • severe-looking but improving
  • hidden deterioration before collapse

Decision Reasoning

Dataset:

  • clinical-escalation-discipline-v0.2

Tests whether a model can decide when monitoring is no longer enough.

Core distinction:

  • high visible severity but improving
  • moderate visible severity but deteriorating

Boundary Reasoning

Dataset:

  • clinical-constraint-pressure-v0.2

Tests whether a model can detect pressure on the patient system.

Core distinction:

  • support needs
  • reserve capacity
  • direction of pressure

Margin Reasoning

Dataset:

  • clinical-boundary-distance-v0.2

Tests whether a model can estimate proximity to collapse boundary.

Core distinction:

  • safe margin
  • narrowing margin
  • critical boundary proximity

Recovery Reasoning

Datasets:

  • clinical-recovery-geometry-v0.2
  • clinical-recovery-energy-v0.2

Tests whether a model can distinguish real recovery from superficial improvement and estimate recovery burden.

Core distinctions:

  • improvement in one marker versus structural recovery
  • low recovery effort versus high recovery effort

Intervention Reasoning

Dataset:

  • clinical-competing-interventions-v0.2

Tests whether a model can compare competing stabilisation pathways.

Core distinction:

  • best action is not always the most aggressive action
  • intervention quality depends on patient state, response profile, and downstream risk