Adaptive Institute
PaperIn reviewPublic reviewReady for decision

Alert fatigue in small security teams: a queueing view

AI-PRF-0044v0.9.0CybersecurityAdaptive Institute Security Labstage open 2026-09-15 → 2026-10-13

Summary

Models an analyst queue as a service system and shows how alert volume, triage time and staffing interact.

Claims to check

  1. C1Queue model reproduces observed backlog within 10%
  2. C2Attaching context cuts median triage time

Evidence submitted

Paper
14 pages, v0.9.0
Notebook
Model and figures

Automated checks

CHECKS / AI-PRF-0044v0.9.01 OF 1 PASSCLEAN ENV
  1. pass Figures reproduce · All 5 figures

Checks run by the Institute on submission. A pass here is not a verdict.

Version history

  1. v0.9.02026-09-14Added sensitivity analysis
  2. v0.8.02026-07-21Submitted

Reviews already filed

  • RV-2026-0097PublicP. WidodoAccept12/15 · read v0.9.0
See them on the ledger
The rubric, in full
  1. Works as briefed. Does it run from the instructions and do what the brief asks, on the test data? Must pass
  2. Claims match evidence. Is every claim in the write-up backed by a test, data or a demo you could rerun?
  3. Reproducible. Did a clean environment reproduce the reported results with the documented steps? Must pass
  4. Limits stated. Are failure cases and the limits of scope written down where a reader will see them?
  5. Responsible use. Are data sources cited and permitted, and are risks and human oversight addressed where relevant?

0 Missing · 1 Weak · 2 Meets · 3 Strong. Below Meets needs a written reason.

Your review

Public review of AI-PRF-0044

Reviewing as N. Rahman · Adaptive Institute Security Lab stays anonymous to every reviewer until the decision. Everything you file here is published on the ledger under your name.

1 Conflict of interest
2 What you reviewed
3 Criteria0 / 15

Score each criterion against the public rubric. Must-pass criteria need Meets or better before you can accept.

  1. 01Works as briefedMust pass

    Does it run from the instructions and do what the brief asks, on the test data?

  2. 02Claims match evidence

    Is every claim in the write-up backed by a test, data or a demo you could rerun?

  3. 03ReproducibleMust pass

    Did a clean environment reproduce the reported results with the documented steps?

  4. 04Limits stated

    Are failure cases and the limits of scope written down where a reader will see them?

  5. 05Responsible use

    Are data sources cited and permitted, and are risks and human oversight addressed where relevant?

4 Verdict

Say what you checked, what you found, and what would change your verdict. Address the work, not the person.

0 / 120 min
No verdict yet

Filed reviews cannot be edited. To correct one, file an amendment; both stay on the ledger.