Week 25 — trialkit field module

This week delivers the three concrete artifacts below and the supporting learning/branding/opportunity pack. The scientific or commercial outcome follows the preserved source brief, while the acceptance checks make its evidence testable. The career objective is to turn this work into something a scientist, hiring manager or buyer can inspect.

• Scientific/build priority: Select versioned public field datasets and map ten target formats into plot/block/treatment/replicate/date/variable schema with unit checks.
• Public/profile priority: Draft a field-trial decision example showing an effect size and uncertainty, with a 60-second demo script.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Prepare one feedback ask to a field-trial scientist and one employer evidence update; keep Paper 3 lab progress in the tracker.

Read v6 · Week 25 · Instrument 2 trialkit (field module) before Monday. It expands this week's one-row v5 brief into daily build steps and adds the Welcome analogy, Learn it (▶ core and ＋ deeper sources), Run it (repos with a 20-40 minute exercise), the NotebookLM kit and the mentor check below. Standing v6 rules: resource rules, NotebookLM protocol, chapter anatomy. v6 adds depth only; it does not change a goal, gate, output or the 600-minute cap, so this specification still governs execution.

Act VI · Threads: M, $, R · Next gate: 28

Where this week sits. - ← From: week 7 (LLM mapping measured against a gold set), week 14 (multiple testing), v4 Part 5.2 (trialkit design). - → Feeds: week 26 (plate module), week 27 (the offer shows two instruments), week 29 (audit prototype on client data), archetype B companies in v4 Appendix A. - ⟳ Returns in: Loop Audits for field-trial companies; the Medium deep dive planned in v4.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: trialkit/ingest (schema mapping with measured accuracy) and trialkit report (design detection, mixed model, intervals); trialkit v0.1 + Z5. - 🏁 Next milestone: Gate 28 (first invoice). - 🌟 Final: a second instrument that widens who can buy a Loop Audit.

The plan (from v5 Part 7, expanded; gate and output unchanged).

v5 row: 25 | Instrument 2 trialkit (field module) | NIST ch. 5 (DoE); statsmodels MixedLM | trialkit/ingest and report (v4 weeks 9-10 content) | trialkit v0.1, Z5 - Goal: from 10 heterogeneous published trial spreadsheets to one defensible report. - Tue (study): NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook ch. 5.1-5.3 (DoE: randomised block designs, factorials); statsmodels MixedLM documentation. - Build: [ ] Mon: trial schema (plot, block, treatment, replicate, date, variable, unit); LLM mapping of 10 agridat trials (via the Rdatasets mirror) with Claude vs local Qwen; mapping accuracy against 10 hand-mapped files. Done when the accuracy table prints. [ ] Wed: design detection (CRD, RCBD, split-plot) and MixedLM with treatment effects and intervals; bootstrap check. Done when a known published trial's effect is reproduced within its reported interval. [ ] Fri: trialkit report (HTML, Spanish and English); release v0.1 + Zenodo DOI. Done when the DOI badge renders. - Sun: L-Sun "10 field trials, 10 spreadsheet formats, one schema, one defensible number". Z5. - Only one thing: one published trial reproduced with an interval.

Mentor check. "I can take a messy field trial and say the treatment effect with an interval that respects the design."

• Week 20: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 24: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Read commitment, evidence, review and the current root TODAY/PROGRESS/QUESTIONS files.
• Read this week's chapter, v6 · Week 25 · Instrument 2 trialkit (field module), then the standing sections: Part 0 · how to use the document, Part 3 · the scientific thesis, Part 4 · curriculum, Part 8 · the prompt pack and Part 9 · branding and endorsement. The same sections exist in the v5 master, which remains the governing sequence; v6 reproduces them and adds depth. Retained commercial/instrument details come from v4.
• Inspect the actual canonical repository state, available data, existing figures and required human/external inputs. Never assume a previous week succeeded from its folder name.
• Verify current resource links, versions, dataset rights and any live company/venue information before relying on them. Use source catalog; explicitly record inaccessible resources.

The model must turn these into exact physical actions using the observed files and available inputs. Each 90-minute block includes start/stop rituals. All calls, posts, debugging, reading and exercises consume this same capacity.

Half 2: Tuesday is the formal study block unless this is a selling/submission/decision week. Thursday supports applied review, partner work or the market task; do not add another full course.

Biology/domain unit

Material: NIST handbook chapter 5 sections on randomized blocks/design and statsmodels MixedLM examples; draw one dataset's actual design.

Produce: One concise applied note, a worked decision/example and unresolved questions.

Understanding check: The note directly supports this week's experiment, collaboration, delivery or career action.

During preparation, write one worked example connected to the week's actual task, one exercise with a separate answer key and five questions. Peter supplies answers; score explanation quality and flag misconceptions in QUESTIONS. Numeric/scientific conclusions require actual data or explicitly synthetic teaching values.

AI/scientific-method unit

Material: Apply mapping-evaluation and mixed-model diagnostics to one field trial; inspect unit and replication errors. Last 30 minutes: founder field-trial paper.

Produce: One concise applied note, a worked decision/example and unresolved questions.

Understanding check: The note directly supports this week's experiment, collaboration, delivery or career action.

Use the prompt pack: P1 explanation ladder, P2 concept-to-project bridge and P3 quiz. Coding practice belongs within the allocated study/build block. Where the source asks for a favorable scientific result, substitute an honest measured comparison as explained below.

Founder/scientist paper

Select one verified founder/scientific-lead paper relevant to this week's domain. Use P11; save the question, method, numerical result with context, data workflow, three author questions and one connection sentence in founder-paper.md. Keep abstract-only access limitations explicit. On source weeks with no study, prioritize the commercial/submission task and log any skipped digest.

These filenames are outputs to prepare during this week's execution; this scaffold does not claim they already exist. Drafts and measured results have different states. Technical code/data stay in the canonical project repository and are referenced from these coordinating files.

During preparation, future measured tables get column definitions, input requirements and run instructions with PENDING status. During execution, replace pending values only with measured outputs. Do not create realistic-looking fake evidence.

Branding: Draft a field-trial decision example showing an effect size and uncertainty, with a 60-second demo script.

Opportunity action: Prepare one feedback ask to a field-trial scientist and one employer evidence update; keep Paper 3 lab progress in the tracker.

Use career asset contracts. Publish at most the agreed cadence; one figure and one supported number or admitted failure can support multiple drafts. In long-form weeks, prepare a 1,500–2,500-word article from existing evidence within the build/buffer allocation. In release/demo weeks, prepare a 60-second script: problem, input, command/action, result, limitation and proof link.

Verify individuals, jobs and affiliations at execution time. The GridX list and v4 company map are research seeds, not current facts. Do not reveal named company weaknesses or employer/client confidential information. Keep drafted/sent/replied/booked/held statuses separate. The planning request alone does not authorize external messages or publication; honor explicit authorization in the execution session.

Two old v4 weeks are compressed here. Prioritize one valid design end-to-end; record any unmet ten-format target and defer image scoring to the parking lot.

Apply the root scientific evidence contract: provenance; meaningful independent splits; no future-data leakage; baseline comparison; actual denominators/uncertainty; failed cases; human review where required. State whether data are simulated, public experimental, synthetic or partner-provided.

Keep source gates intact, and log scope/time conflicts in review. Missing people, money, access or results must not be replaced with invented evidence. Reduce optional polish first. A specific essential external dependency stays pending while independent preparation continues.

This is an enabling week. Its deliverables feed the next scheduled gate: 28. Complete the acceptance checklist below; do not promote reputation from a draft.

• Monday artifact satisfies: Generate one design-correct field-trial report end to end and prepare the trialkit release package.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: Replicates, random effects and design assumptions are explicit; unsupported designs fail clearly.
• Friday artifact satisfies: A clean run produces the report and release metadata is ready.
• Study pack is prepared; Peter's actual learning/quiz result is recorded separately.
• Branding and opportunity drafts use supported claims and the correct external-action state.
• Reproduction or document checks are recorded with file/version references.
• This week's special gate, if any, has real evidence or remains explicitly pending.
• Review, root progress/log and the next physical action are updated.

Expanded minimum derived from the source goal: Generate one design-correct field-trial report end to end and prepare the trialkit release package.

Operational first step if stalled: open field-mapping-evaluation.csv, write the required inputs and produce the smallest checkable example in ten minutes. If a more urgent missing gate dependency controls the week, use the source minimum above.

If the full week does not fit, use P14: retain one gate-critical deliverable and one directly supporting study exercise; record what is skipped versus moved. Do not mark the original full gate passed merely because the minimum was completed. After a missed week, reforecast from actual evidence and avoid a second unexamined lost week.

In review, state exactly what exists, what was verified, what Peter can now explain, which external events remain pending, where the canonical code/data live, and the next file/function or draft paragraph to touch. Link each fact to evidence. Carry scientific assumptions, split definitions and rights constraints forward explicitly.

Prepare Week 25 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-25-trialkit-field-module/specs.md, commitment.md, evidence.md and review.md.
Read prior prerequisite reviews and inspect actual repository/data state.
Use v5 as the governing sequence, the v6 Week 25 chapter
(LABLOOP-Master-Plan-v6.md) as the deeper walkthrough, and v4 only for
retained details.
Produce the full local preparation pack and the exact week-specific files named
in the artifact table. Give me a bounded lesson with exercises/answer key,
daily physical actions, technical runbook or draft, branding drafts and
career/commercial actions. Keep the total to 600 minutes.
Separate prepared artifacts from measured results and my learning completion.
Verify sources and do not invent metrics, citations, papers, people or outcomes.
Do not execute external communications, publication or spending unless the
current session already authorizes the specific action.
Finish by updating evidence/review and TODAY with the next physical action.

v6 expands this row into a full brief, with the gate and output unchanged, inside v6 · Week 25 · Instrument 2 trialkit (field module). The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.