# Grading: S5_oss_burnout — Grader 1

## Recommendation R1
1. Structural coherence: 9/10 — The pieces interlock tightly: the charter legitimizes the queue filter, the priority ordering routes to the funded paths, and the dashboard feeds the quarterly retune, so removing any one (e.g., the charter) predictably breaks the legitimacy of the refusals downstream.
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 8/10 — Names community-death from over-gating, abuse, security lapse, and three-person fragility, with a specific counter for each (never gate use; canned-reply-then-lock; protected security lane; contributor ladder).
3. Implementability: 9/10 — Every move (templates, auto-close, fiscal host, supported-version list, dashboard) is executable by one person without compelling anyone to pay, and intake automation does the heavy lifting rather than manual triage.
4. Mechanism grounding: 9/10 — Highly concrete: minimal-repro templates, auto-label-and-close grace window, dedicated security channel with stated timeframe, ordered priority lanes, paid tiers via fiscal host, sponsor wall.
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — Cleanly separates free readers/forkers from queue-entrants, offers companies a paid opt-in, credits non-code contributors, and the explicit "ask for priority only if you fund or fix it" assigns cost to beneficiaries.
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 8/10 — Protects the security invariant as a hard floor and protects the contributor pipeline by keeping use free, plus a load-budget trigger that tightens intake before touching security or the maintainer; less explicit on the "last maintainer walking away" single-point-of-failure than peers.
TOTAL: 52/60

## Recommendation R2
1. Structural coherence: 9/10 — Bounded resource → published contract → entry condition → protected security reserve → reciprocity-for-attention → funding fork → load distribution → adaptive review form a chain where removing the contract or the reserve clearly collapses later legitimacy and the no-lapse guarantee.
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 8/10 — Anticipates single-absence security lapse (backup responder), entitled crowding-out, mood-driven inconsistency, and good-faith-newcomer starvation (appeal path), each with a named counter.
3. Implementability: 9/10 — All concrete and one-person-executable; the "recruit a backup security responder if at all possible" is appropriately hedged given the no-compulsion constraint.
4. Mechanism grounding: 9/10 — Forum-vs-tracker routing, required repro, feature-needs-proposal-or-sponsor, scheduled untouchable security time, triager/reviewer roles with merge rights, paid-priority subsidizing free tier.
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — Strong: distinguishes temporary-can't-contribute from persistent free-rider with an easy route back, ties company benefits to money/labor not usage, and frames the honest alternative (an unmaintained dependency).
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10 — Explicitly de-concentrates from one person (delegate authority, rotate gardener, backup responder), names the no-lapse invariant, and the symmetric retune rule (tighten what burns / loosen what empties) directly manages the load-vs-pipeline tension.
TOTAL: 53/60

## Recommendation R3
1. Structural coherence: 9/10 — The "received vs accepted" separation plus a capped, posted-size backlog is a genuinely load-bearing core: the cap, the dashboard, the never-throttled security lane, and the fund-security-first ordering all depend on each other.
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 8/10 — Names the angry-escalation source (false service commitment of being queued), paywall risk, and last-line-of-defense risk, each countered (auto-label/close, free users never abandoned, written process + rotation).
3. Implementability: 8/10 — Mostly executable, but a posted bounded-backlog target size and pausing feature intake when full are more operationally demanding for a solo maintainer to maintain credibly than templates alone.
4. Mechanism grounding: 9/10 — Very concrete: needs-info labels, modest published response targets (triaged within two weeks, no fix-date promise), private disclosure channel, security-retainer, money buys down on-call first, contributor-standing record.
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — Sharp on equity: "converts the heaviest extractors into payers," free users explicitly keep backlog + community + security guarantee, paid tier buys speed not existence; clearly assigns cost to commercial beneficiaries.
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10 — "No individual is ever the last line of defense" is the explicit invariant; rotation, written process, and fund-security-first directly address collapse, and the quarterly retune watches the contributor-to-taker ratio.
TOTAL: 52/60

## Recommendation R4
1. Structural coherence: 8/10 — Coherent lane system (self-service gate → reciprocity triage → funding → second responder → scope-shedding), though it reads slightly more as a strong checklist than a single tightly-causal mechanism; still, removing the second-responder piece clearly breaks the continuity guarantee.
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10 — Best on the gravest risk: explicitly names single-point-of-failure and "I'll wait for others to pay," countering with immediate second security responder, merge authority to one more, and pledge-threshold/matching drives; also forgiveness path and anti-retaliation.
3. Implementability: 8/10 — Executable, though "immediately recruit a second security responder" leans on others' goodwill the maintainer cannot compel; framed as recruit/document so still actionable, but slightly less robust to the no-help case than R5/R6.
4. Mechanism grounding: 8/10 — Concrete (FAQ/known-issues gate, 48h security target, contributor ladder, runbooks, separate one-time vs ongoing funding, route money to load-bearing work first), with a couple of softer items (community-maintained labels).
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — Engages heterogeneity well: companies framed as buying continuity not charity, forgiveness path for the temporarily-unable, anti-status-based exclusion to protect the pipeline, money routed to unglamorous work.
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10 — Makes the single-irreplaceable-person risk the centerpiece, recruits redundancy before collapse, and the monthly (faster than peers) load-vs-capacity review with "keep the filter just heavy enough / just light enough" directly holds the tension.
TOTAL: 51/60

## Recommendation R5
1. Structural coherence: 9/10 — The commons framing drives a coherent system: one controlled front door, asymmetric security-vs-everything-else routing, health board, recognition ladder, offered-not-required funding, soft sanctions, and scope review all follow from "defend the pool, convert takers to stewards."
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10 — Sharp on specific failure modes: hard rate-limits choking newcomers (counter: let templates/triage filter instead), funding-as-gate dependency (counter: payment is an offered exception, stay healthy if no one pays), gatekeeping killing the community (counter: generous to honest newcomers).
3. Implementability: 9/10 — Strongly robust to the constraint: it explicitly never depends on payment or recruited help as a gate, so a single maintainer can run the whole design even if no one pays or volunteers; all mechanisms are solo-executable.
4. Mechanism grounding: 8/10 — Concrete (templates, private security channel, "wanted — needs a contributor" tagging, health board, documented path to commit access, graduated soft sanctions, deprecate/sunset modules), though a touch less specific on numeric targets than R3/R4.
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — "Prices the externality for those willing to pay," health board shows companies the under-resourcing, distinguishes free-riders from honest newcomers; cost falls on those wanting guaranteed turnaround, robust because it doesn't assume they comply.
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 8/10 — "More stewards, not a more heroic few" and explicit refusal to throttle the pipeline address the tension well; scope sunset is honest, but it is somewhat lighter than R2/R4 on concrete redundancy for the single-maintainer-walking-away moment.
TOTAL: 52/60

## Recommendation R6
1. Structural coherence: 9/10 — Tight and explicit: the standout is naming support-load and contributor-pipeline as different resources that must move in opposite directions, with the time-box, tiers, security lane, and quarterly review all wired to that principle; remove the low-contributor-barrier piece and the pipeline predictably collapses.
2. Failure-mode anticipation: 8/10 — Names capture-by-loudest-payers (counter: money buys no roadmap/security control), abuse (templated boundary then lock), and pipeline collapse, each countered; slightly fewer distinct named modes than R4/R5.
3. Implementability: 9/10 — Declared weekly time-box, published board, templated boundary, direct outreach to largest companies, and explicit "must survive even if no one pays" make it fully solo-executable within the constraints.
4. Mechanism grounding: 9/10 — Concrete: reproducible-test-case gate, weekly time-box, queue-depth board with target response by type, paid SLA with no roadmap/security control, good-first-issues, reporter→contributor→committer path, scope-shrink before more load.
5. Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10 — Explicitly guards against capture by the loudest payers (a nuance peers underplay), keeps the consume-vs-contribute barriers asymmetric, approaches big dependents directly framing sponsorship as cheap insurance, costs fall on those wanting more.
6. Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 10/10 — The clearest treatment of the core tension: support-load and contributor-pipeline named as opposing resources to move in opposite directions, security as the one invariant promise, and recovering two-three contributors framed as directly relieving the draining failure mode.
TOTAL: 54/60

## Comparison and ranking

All six converge on the same correct skeleton: reframe attention (not code) as the scarce resource, publish a charter, gate intake by template/reciprocity, wall off security as the never-lapse invariant, open voluntary paid lanes, grow contributors, and retune on a cadence. They are differentiated by which tensions they handle best. R6 most crisply names the load-vs-pipeline tension as two opposing resources and uniquely guards against payer-capture, edging it ahead. R2 is the most complete and balanced execution, with the strongest free-rider-vs-temporarily-unable nuance and a backup responder. R4 owns the single-point-of-failure risk most directly (second responder, pledge thresholds, monthly review). R3 contributes the distinctive capped-backlog and "received vs accepted" mechanics. R5 is the most robust to the no-one-helps case (never depends on payment/help as a gate). R1 is excellent and concrete but slightly underweights the last-maintainer redundancy problem. None is weak; the spread is narrow.

Ranking, best to worst: R6 > R2 > R1 ≈ R3 ≈ R5 > R4 (R4 ranks last only because its second-responder reliance leans hardest on goodwill the maintainer cannot compel, despite its excellent failure-mode work).

Adopt: R6 — it best holds the central non-linear tension (relieve load now without collapsing the pipeline), uniquely prevents payer-capture, and is fully executable by one maintainer even if no one pays.
