← graph

discovery-d4-luca

Discovery D4: Luca's high-risk/high-reward research arc (from v1)

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-127
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T22:56:32.813736619+00:00
Started2026-05-01T22:59:00.823985408+00:00
Completed2026-05-01T23:02:40.431297950+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,v3,discovery, eval-scheduled
Tokens1062867 in / 12233 out
Eval score0.22
└ blocking impact0.15
└ completeness0.15
└ constraint fidelity0.85
└ coordination overhead0.20
└ correctness0.25
└ downstream usability0.10
└ efficiency0.50
└ intent fidelity0.32
└ style adherence0.25

Description

Description

Erik wants to fold back Luca's v1 'high-risk, high-reward research' arc — novel drug discovery, generative methodologies, synthesis-style work — into v3.1. Frame: NOT a hard commitment, but 'one research line we want to be considering systematically.'

This addresses panel weakness W1 (no specific science deliverable) by giving v3.1 some of v2's ambition while staying inside Luca's COI constraints (DNA-Diffusion is track record only, not funded scope) and not recreating v1's overclaim.

What to research

  1. workgraph_google_application_FINAL.md (v1) — what did v1 propose under Luca's high-risk arc? Drug discovery? Generative DNA design? Synthesis methodologies? What was the framing?
  2. workgraph_extended_outline.md (v1) — same.
  3. STATE.md §5 — why was v1 cut, specifically the high-risk-arc cut? Important to not recreate the overclaim that triggered the cut.
  4. CLAUDE.md — Luca's tools and COI constraints (DNA-Diffusion, CRISPRme, Chorus). Specifically: 'Luca COI on generative DNA. Luca has commercial interests around generative DNA design, so DNA-Diffusion is mentioned as track record but explicitly outside funded scope.'
  5. Pinello lab's current high-risk research — what's actually in motion that's defensible to cite (CRISPResso/CRISPRme advances, BEAN, Chorus orchestrating genomic AI, IGVF coordination)?

What to produce

~/poietic.life/notes/v3-discovery-d4-luca-highrisk-arc-20260501.md — under 800 words.

Structure:

What v1 proposed (high-risk arc)

Honest summary. What was the ambition? What got cut and why?

What v3.1 can defensibly say

A single paragraph (200-300 words) that introduces the high-risk research arc as 'systematically considered research direction' without:

  • Promising specific drug discovery results
  • Putting DNA-Diffusion inside funded scope (COI)
  • Recreating v1's overclaim

The paragraph should:

  • Position WorkGraph as enabling systematic exploration of high-risk methods (because auditable coordination makes failure-tolerant research feasible)
  • Cite Luca's track record honestly (CRISPResso, CRISPRme, Chorus, IGVF)
  • Name the kinds of high-risk work this enables (e.g. generative methods exploration, novel CRISPR strategies, multi-omics integration) as classes, not specific products
  • Make clear this is research direction we want to systematically consider, not 36-month deliverable

Where this goes in v3.1

Section number recommendation. Likely §17 (approach) or §19 (impact) or a new bullet in §28 (related work / research arcs). Single recommendation.

What NOT to claim

Explicit list of phrases / claims that would either trigger the v1-overclaim trap or bump into Luca's COI.

Constraints

  • Honest about what v1 was and why it was cut.
  • COI on Luca's generative DNA must be respected. DNA-Diffusion = track record, not funded scope.
  • No em-dashes.
  • The drop-in paragraph for v3.1 must not recreate the v1 overclaim.

Validation

  • v1 high-risk arc summarized faithfully
  • STATE.md §5 cut rationale referenced
  • Drop-in paragraph for v3.1 produced (200-300 words)
  • Section placement recommended
  • DO-NOT-CLAIM list explicit
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-discovery-d4-luca-highrisk-arc-YYYYMMDD.md

Depends on

Required by

Log