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

This question is off-topic for this archive. The Antigravity collection focuses on frontier science — physics, propulsion, relativity, and mathematical physics — not on AI evaluation methodology or software engineering metrics in general.

That said, I can note briefly: the preprints here do illustrate why evaluation differs across domains. Code evaluation [AG-2024.06-2131, AG-2026.03-1745] relies on *executable correctness* — does the generated program run and produce the right output? — whereas theoretical physics evaluation [AG-2026.04-565, AG-2025.07-1634] must grade *conceptual reasoning* on a spectrum, since intermediate steps and implicit constraints matter even when a final answer is nominally "wrong." But for a deep treatment of AI evaluation design, you'd want to consult machine learning or software engineering literature.