Week 30 — audit readout and validation results

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: Complete the audit's three prioritized automation candidates with measured baseline, estimated days saved, uncertainty, cost assumptions and owner.
• Public/profile priority: Draft an audit lesson and validation figure summary; client-specific publication remains contingent on permission.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Prepare a second-audit or pilot next step from actual findings; ask for publishable feedback only after delivery.

Read v6 · Week 30 · Audit delivery 2; Paper 3 results 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, $, EL · Next gate: 32

Where this week sits. - ← From: week 24 pre-registration, week 28 raw results, week 29 audit. - → Feeds: week 31 (Paper 3 draft), week 32 (preprint + case study), week 38 (talk), week 39 (fund package uses the case study). - ⟳ Returns in: L4 co-authored and the commercial proof of Act VI.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: audit final readout; anonymised case study drafted; partner validation analysed per plan; Paper 3 figures. - 🏁 Next milestone: Gate 32. - 🌟 Final: Paper 3 with real validation and a public case study.

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

v5 row: 30 | Audit delivery 2; Paper 3 results | Statistics for validation results (small n) | Analysis of the partner's validation; figures | Anonymized case study drafted - Goal: two honest reports: one for the client, one for science. - Tue (study): statistics for small n: estimation plots, bootstrap limits with n = 3, why to show every point. - Build: [ ] Mon: audit readout delivered; three candidates with days saved; client feedback captured; case-study permission asked. [ ] Wed: validation analysis exactly as in PREREGISTRATION.md; deviations from the plan listed explicitly. Done when every pre-registered analysis has a result. [ ] Fri: Paper 3 figures (predicted vs measured, per candidate, all replicates shown); case study draft (anonymised). - Sun: L-Sun only with permissions; otherwise "what a pre-registration felt like when the data arrived". - Only one thing: the pre-registered analysis run.

Mentor check. "I can show whether my predictions held in a real lab, with every replicate visible, and I delivered a client readout the same week."

• Week 24: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 29: 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 30 · Audit delivery 2; Paper 3 results, 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: Revisit MSMB/ISLP bootstrap and small-sample inference; define the actual biological unit and descriptive limits of partner assays.

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 the preregistered analysis to received data and reconcile audit delivery evidence; no new course. Relevant partner paper within remaining time.

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 an audit lesson and validation figure summary; client-specific publication remains contingent on permission.

Opportunity action: Prepare a second-audit or pilot next step from actual findings; ask for publishable feedback only after delivery.

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.

Do not force wet-lab results to arrive on schedule. Two major workstreams compete for capacity; prioritize contracted obligations and record research slippage rather than inventing closure.

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: 32. Complete the acceptance checklist below; do not promote reputation from a draft.

• Monday artifact satisfies: Complete the contracted audit readout or documented delivery recovery, and preserve any received partner data with provenance.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: Observed versus predicted outcomes and deviations are separate.
• Friday artifact satisfies: Client claims trace to evidence; publication permission is requested separately.
• 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: Complete the contracted audit readout or documented delivery recovery, and preserve any received partner data with provenance.

Operational first step if stalled: open audit-final-readout.md, 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 30 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-30-audit-readout-and-validation-results/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 30 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 30 · Audit delivery 2; Paper 3 results. The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.