Week 39 — fund portfolio offer

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: Define five mini audits over five weeks, startup-level outputs and the consolidated fund report with separate data-access boundaries.
• Public/profile priority: Draft a portfolio data-readiness note using archetypes and consented aggregate evidence.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Prepare a qualified fund proposal; update revenue, proposal and hiring stages for the final decision.

Read v6 · Week 39 · Fund package 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 VIII · Threads: $, R · Next gate: 40

Where this week sits. - ← From: week 16 (preprint sent to GridX contact), week 27 (offer), weeks 29-30 and 32 (case study), v4 Part 4 (portfolio package pricing hypothesis). - → Feeds: week 40 (pipeline in the decision), Half 3 (retainers). - ⟳ Returns in: long-term deal flow; funds are repeat buyers.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: portfolio data-readiness package proposed to one fund (GridX first). - 🏁 Next milestone: Gate 40. - 🌟 Final: a repeatable, higher-ticket offer.

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

v5 row: 39 | Fund package | none | Portfolio data-readiness package proposed to one fund (GridX first) | Proposal sent - Goal: the proposal is sent. - Build: [ ] Mon: package design: 5 mini audits (1 week each, standard template), consolidated report (loop cycle times, readiness scores, top automation candidates across the portfolio), pricing from v4 Part 4 updated with real audit effort. [ ] Wed: proposal (2 pages) with the case study, preprints and one anonymised sample page of the consolidated report. [ ] Fri: sent to the GridX contact; follow-up date logged. - Sun: no public post about the fund; general post on "what a portfolio view of lab data reveals" only when real. - Only one thing: the proposal sent.

Mentor check. "I can offer a fund a measured view of its whole portfolio's lab loops, backed by a real case study."

• Week 27: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 30: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 32: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 37: 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 39 · Fund package, 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: No new course. Read the target fund's current portfolio/program information and approved case-study evidence.

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: Review offer capacity, service economics and confidentiality boundaries; use the rest for existing commitments.

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 portfolio data-readiness note using archetypes and consented aggregate evidence.

Opportunity action: Prepare a qualified fund proposal; update revenue, proposal and hiring stages for the final decision.

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.

A portfolio package is a service offer, not a new platform build. Do not share one startup's confidential data with another or a fund without appropriate permission.

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

• Monday artifact satisfies: Finish one evidence-backed fund proposal with a feasible five-week service schedule.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: Economic assumptions and expected versus measured benefits are labeled.
• Friday artifact satisfies: One specific fund route and a realistic next decision exist.
• 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: Finish one evidence-backed fund proposal with a feasible five-week service schedule.

Operational first step if stalled: open fund-package-scope.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 39 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-39-fund-portfolio-offer/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 39 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 39 · Fund package. The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.