Technical report 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: Benchmark PLS and LightGBM titer prediction at 25/50/75 percent of observable batch time with grouped splits and an explicit forecast target.
• Public/profile priority: Prepare Medium deep dive 2, Sunday post and a 60-second demo script from the same evidence.
• Career/relationship/commercial priority: Target five archetype-A founders for 30-minute feedback; distinguish five messages from five completed conversations.

Read v6 · Week 8 · GATE 8: technical report and L2 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 II (finale) · Threads: M, BL, FL, R · GATE 8

Where this week sits. - ← From: weeks 1-4 (batchlens), weeks 5-7 (FermLit F1 table). - → Feeds: week 12 (hybrid model beats or loses to this week's LightGBM/PLS baseline), week 16 (the 5 founders receive the preprint), week 17 (Paper 2 extends this soft sensor), week 12 endorsement asks (the report is your proof of seriousness). - ⟳ Returns in: Paper 2 baselines; the founder conversations that lead to the co-author in week 24.

Goals. - 🎯 This week: soft sensor with error at 25/50/75% of batch time; technical report on Zenodo with DOI; 5 founders messaged; F1 table public. - 🏁 This gate (8): L2 citable, solidly. - 🌟 Final: the first link in the chain founder → collaborator → co-author.

Mentor check. "I have a DOI on a document that explains a method, a number and its failure modes, and five founders have it in their inbox."

• Week 04: inspect its actual evidence and review; source/code artifacts must exist before the dependent task begins.
• Week 07: 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 8 · GATE 8: technical report and L2, 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: B8 · Industrial biotech overview and review

Material: Microbiology ch. 12.5 and any open "industrial microbiology" overview; re-read your B1-B7 notes

Produce: A 2-page "biology for my thesis" summary

Understanding check: Prompt P3 quiz score ≥ 4/5

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: M8 · Backpropagation by hand

Material: Karpathy, "The spelling-out intro to neural networks and backpropagation: building micrograd" — karpathy.ai/zero-to-hero.html

Produce: micrograd rewritten from memory

Understanding check: You can derive a gradient of a tiny network

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 Medium deep dive 2, Sunday post and a 60-second demo script from the same evidence.

Opportunity action: Target five archetype-A founders for 30-minute feedback; distinguish five messages from five completed conversations.

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.

Report drafting, publishing and micrograd exceed one short block if started from zero. Assemble figures throughout prior weeks, use Saturday for packaging, and leave the gate pending if evidence is incomplete.

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 08: Technical report.

Required proof: Technical report DOI; public per-field F1 table; five founder messages actually sent. Track five conversations as a separate relationship target.

Reputation interpretation: L2. Record target, forecast, actual date and evidence link. The original gate stays incomplete until the required external proof exists.

• Monday artifact satisfies: MAE/RMSE, N, uncertainty and observation cutoff are logged for both baselines.
• Wednesday artifact satisfies: The draft contains data provenance, method, results, limitations and reproduction commands.
• Friday artifact satisfies: Actual report DOI, public F1 link and five send receipts are required for 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.

Source-preserving minimum: the report on Zenodo.

Operational first step if stalled: open softsensor-benchmark.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 08 of this LABLOOP execution plan.
Read execution-plan/specs.md, execution-plan/DECISIONS.md,
execution-plan/GATES.md and
execution-plan/weeks/week-08-technical-report-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 08 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 8 · GATE 8: technical report and L2. The following is source planning text, not a claim of completion. Apply the explicit evidence corrections in this specification and DECISIONS.md.

Week 8 · GATE 8: technical report and L2

• Goal: the first artifact with scientific shape.
• Tue (B8): review + 2-page summary; Prompt P3 quiz.
• Thu (M8): Karpathy micrograd; rewrite from memory Saturday.
• Build: Mon: soft sensor (titer from online variables), batch-wise CV, error at 25/50/75% of batch time; LightGBM vs PLS. Done when the curve regenerates. Wed: Technical report 1 (8-10 pages, Quarto): batchlens on IndPenSim: golden batch, deviation detection, soft sensor; methods reproducible; "where it fails". Prompt P9 for the skeleton, P10 for review. Fri: release batchlens v0.2 + report PDF on Zenodo. Send the report to 5 archetype-A founders with the Track F outreach line: "would you tell me in 30 minutes whether this resembles your tank?"
• Sun: M2 deep dive: "What 100 open fermentation batches taught me about early deviation detection". Z2. L-Sun. Gauge check: L2.
• Gate 8 passes when: report on Zenodo with DOI, 5 founders messaged, F1 table public.
• Only one thing: the report on Zenodo.