v1 · public proof layer
Candidate Record v1
How TWOG converts internal research artifacts into stable public candidate pages with rationale, evidence, risks, decision history, and reproducibility metadata.
A candidate page is a frozen public argument. It should show what TWOG currently believes, what supports it, what is still weak, and what would change the record.
LLMs argue and synthesize. Operator approval is the write gate.
A candidate record is a public snapshot of a research idea at a specific moment. It preserves the hypothesis, current status, source evidence, known risks, decision history, and reproducibility metadata without treating the idea as clinically settled.
Short labels such as C1 or C20 are local citation identifiers from a source brief. The public page must expand them into article titles, identifiers, links, evidence type, source provenance, duplicate handling, and the exact claim each source supports.
The content hash is computed from the public snapshot payload. It lets a reader cite or compare a specific version of the candidate page when later evidence changes the record.
Decision entries record when a candidate is proposed, updated, advanced, parked, or regenerated. Each meaningful transition should carry a short rationale and a link back to the related agent, evidence packet, validation decision, or compute run when available.
A candidate page is not a diagnosis, prescription, treatment recommendation, or proof of efficacy. It is a research artifact that makes the reasoning chain easier to inspect, challenge, reproduce, and improve.
- What is being proposed
- The candidate ID, status, target family, therapy family, and current priority score.
- What evidence supports it
- Short citation labels expanded into readable source compartments and supported claims.
- What is still weak
- Known limitations, missing data, citation gaps, and reasons the record has not advanced.
- Why the status changed
- Timestamped rationale for snapshot generation, evidence updates, status changes, and reviewer actions.
- How this version was made
- Pipeline version, source brief/evaluation IDs, committee run IDs, content hash, and method reference.
/api/public-candidates/{candidate_id}/api/public-candidates/api/public-candidates/rly2608-pik3ca/api/public-candidates/rly2608-pik3ca/evidence-bundle/api/public-candidates/rly2608-pik3ca/contribution-template- A record is an inspectable research artifact, not a clinical recommendation.
- Evidence labels are local to the source brief; the reference dossier is the public decoding layer.
- A candidate can be promising and still not validation-ready.
- Human analog evidence is treated as context unless canine-specific evidence closes the bridge.
- A content hash identifies the public snapshot, not permanent scientific truth.
Candidate Record v1 does not certify efficacy, safety, dosing, clinical readiness, regulatory fitness, or veterinary use. It only makes the research reasoning chain easier to inspect.