Paper 1 review and revision

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: Run two critical model reviews and create an issue-by-issue response with source checks and rerun requests.
• Public/profile priority: Draft a review-process post only describing feedback that actually occurred.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Prepare concise reviewer follow-up and acknowledgments; do not treat a reviewer as an automatic co-author.

Read v6 · Week 15 · Review, revise, human read before Monday. It carries this week's v5 brief unchanged 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 IV · Threads: B, M, FL, R · Next gate: 16

Where this week sits. - ← From: week 14 draft. - → Feeds: week 16 submission; week 19 (same human reviewer for Paper 2); weeks 31-32 (co-author review loop for Paper 3). - ⟳ Returns in: your reputation among the people who read drafts; first reviewers often become endorsers or co-authors.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: every [VERIFY] fixed; human review requested (and ideally received); make paper builds the final PDF. - 🏁 Next milestone: Gate 16. - 🌟 Final: a network of scientists who have read your work before it was public.

Mentor check. "A human scientist has read my paper, and I can read any paper's core in 10 minutes."

• Week 14: 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 15 · Review, revise, human read, 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.

Biology/domain unit

Source unit: B15 · How papers are built

Material: Read 3 fermentation papers from FermLit with Prompt P11; note the IMRaD structure

Produce: Structured digests in notes/papers/

Understanding check: You can find methods, results and limitations in 10 minutes

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

Source unit: M15 · Information extraction, measured

Material: Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing (3rd ed. draft, free) chapter on information extraction; Cohen's kappa (any statistics reference)

Produce: Per-field precision/recall, kappa between annotators

Understanding check: Paper 1's evaluation section is written

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.

Branding: Draft a review-process post only describing feedback that actually occurred.

Opportunity action: Prepare concise reviewer follow-up and acknowledgments; do not treat a reviewer as an automatic co-author.

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.

Human review requested is a recovery minimum, not proof that review occurred. If feedback has not arrived, week 16 publication readiness remains pending.

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

• Monday artifact satisfies: Every substantive issue is fixed, justified or explicitly unresolved.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: Request and actual review receipt have separate dated statuses.
• Friday artifact satisfies: A clean build produces the correct PDF and all mandatory fields are 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.

Source-preserving minimum: human review requested.

Operational first step if stalled: open paper-1-review-response.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 15 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-15-paper-1-review-and-revision/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 15 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 reproduces this brief unchanged inside v6 · Week 15 · Review, revise, human read. The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.

Week 15 · Review, revise, human read

• Goal: a draft a scientist has read.
• Tue (B15): three papers with P11, IMRaD noted.
• Thu (M15): Jurafsky & Martin IE chapter; kappa written into Methods.
• Build: Mon: Prompt P10 twice; fix every [VERIFY]. Wed: send to one human scientist (co-author candidate, endorser, or paid postdoc, USD ~100 for 2 hours). Fri: figures final; make paper builds the PDF from the repo.
• Sun: L-Sun: "Reviewer 2 is an LLM and a postdoc; both found things". L-Wed.
• Only one thing: human review requested.