Why might evaluation metrics designed for scientific text differ from metrics needed for code documentation?

This question asks about evaluation methodology, which is outside the scope of this archive — which covers frontier science in propulsion, relativity, and mathematical physics. Try asking about physics, mathematics, or propulsion instead.

That said, I can note briefly: the preprints do illustrate a real pattern. Code evaluation [AG-2024.06-2131] relies on *executable test cases* — a program either runs correctly or it doesn't. Physics text evaluation [AG-2026.04-565, AG-2025.07-1634] must grade *partial reasoning* — intermediate steps, conceptual awareness, and tacit constraints that don't have a single right answer. This fundamental difference shapes metrics: code needs pass/fail thresholds; physics needs rubrics with levels of partial credit. But the archive doesn't directly address comparative metrics design.