Coauthor and validation gate

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: Turn partner feedback into a 5–10-candidate validation proposal with controls, assay endpoint, replicates, conditions and responsibilities.
• Public/profile priority: Prepare a collaboration-process post only with partner permission and earned contribution claims.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Review application pipeline and scientific-role gaps; use partner agreement as evidence only once signed or explicitly accepted.

Read v6 · Week 24 · GATE 24: co-authorship agreed 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 V (finale) · Threads: B, EL, R · GATE 24

Where this week sits. - ← From: weeks 21-23 (model, shortlist, partner relationship); week 6 (you already know how to write a protocol before data). - → Feeds: weeks 28-30 (validation results analysed against this plan), weeks 31-32 (Paper 3), Part 9 ("co-author with [lab]" in the headline). - ⟳ Returns in: L4 co-authored at week 32; the credibility behind every Loop Audit.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: validation plan with 5-10 candidates and a success definition, committed to the repo with a date; written co-author agreement (one paragraph, emailed). - 🏁 This gate (24): co-author agreed; plan pre-registered. - 🌟 Final: Paper 3 with a founder co-author; the peer status of L4.

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

v5 row: 24 | Co-authorship agreed | How wet-lab validation works (partner explains; you take notes) | Validation plan: which 5-10 candidates the partner can express and test in their lab; what "success" is, pre-registered in the repo | Written co-author agreement (one paragraph, emailed) - Goal: a signed intention and a frozen plan. - Tue (study): a session with the partner on their validation workflow (expression host, purification, activity assay, temperature series); your notes in enzymelens/validation/PROTOCOL-NOTES.md. - Build: Mon: draft PREREGISTRATION.md: hypotheses, candidates, controls, primary metric (e.g., residual activity after X min at Y °C, or measured Tm), success threshold, analysis plan for small n. Done when the partner has commented. Wed: incorporate comments; commit with date and tag prereg-v1; optional OSF registration. Done when the tag exists. Fri: authorship paragraph emailed (who does what, author order intention, data sharing, what happens if results are negative: still published). Done when the partner replies yes. - Sun: L-Sun "I pre-registered my first wet-lab validation. Here is why an engineer should love that" (no confidential details). Gauge: L4 (path). - Gate 24 passes when: written co-author agreement exists; validation plan is pre-registered in the repo. - Only one thing: the partner's written yes.

Mentor check. "A scientist has agreed in writing to co-author with me, and the definition of success is frozen in my repo before any data exists."

• Week 23: 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 24 · GATE 24: co-authorship agreed, 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

Material: Partner-led validation explanation: endpoint, assay conditions, controls, biological/technical replicates and candidate feasibility; retain questions.

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 the statistical analysis plan and scientific contribution expectations against the proposed lab protocol. Last 30 minutes: relevant assay 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.

Branding: Prepare a collaboration-process post only with partner permission and earned contribution claims.

Opportunity action: Review application pipeline and scientific-role gaps; use partner agreement as evidence only once signed or explicitly accepted.

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.

Authorship requires real contribution and final manuscript approval. No partner by this gate triggers a documented computational-only route; it does not satisfy the co-authored milestone.

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 Gate 24: Scientific partner.

Required proof: Actual written agreement with a contributing scientist and a timestamped validation protocol.

Reputation interpretation: L4 path; not yet co-authored publication. Record target, forecast, actual date and evidence link. The original gate stays incomplete until the required external proof exists.

• Monday artifact satisfies: Partner owns wet-lab feasibility; success/failure criteria are fixed before outcomes.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: Prepare the validation protocol and obtain the scientist's written agreement; if agreement is absent, log the unmet gate and computational fallback.
• Friday artifact satisfies: Written agreement and a timestamped validation plan support the source gate.
• 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: Prepare the validation protocol and obtain the scientist's written agreement; if agreement is absent, log the unmet gate and computational fallback.

Operational first step if stalled: open validation-plan.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 24 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-24-coauthor-and-validation-gate/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 24 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 24 · GATE 24: co-authorship agreed. The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.