← graph

final-criteria-alignment

Final criteria-alignment audit: v3.1 vs Google.org 4 criteria + FAQs PDF

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-298
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-02T04:16:55.650877030+00:00
Started2026-05-02T04:17:25.031963173+00:00
Completed2026-05-02T04:20:22.425454723+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,final-audit,paste-gate, eval-scheduled
Tokens424731 in / 9790 out
Eval score0.61
└ blocking impact0.58
└ completeness0.52
└ constraint fidelity0.40
└ coordination overhead0.68
└ correctness0.62
└ downstream usability0.42
└ efficiency0.85
└ intent fidelity0.82
└ style adherence0.72

Description

Description

Erik is at the form. Before he hits submit, he wants ONE final audit pass that confirms v3.1 tightly lines up with the Google.org Impact Challenge: AI for Science evaluation criteria and the official FAQs PDF.

This is the LAST gate before submission. Tight scope. No fanout. No new content unless it's a trivial wording tweak. Goal: criterion-by-criterion confirmation that v3.1 concretely addresses what reviewers will be evaluated against.

Time-boxed: ≤15 min wall-clock.

What to read

  1. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3_1.md (current main; latest commit 739c15b after title/topic broadening)
  2. /tmp/google-org-criteria.md (the four criteria + priority areas Erik just pasted)
  3. WebFetch the official FAQs PDF: https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/gic_aisci_faqs.pdf — extract any specific guidance, encouraged framing, prohibited claims, or hint at what reviewers value

What to do

For each of the four criteria, perform a concrete check against v3.1 content. For each: cite the specific v3.1 section(s) that address it, judge tightness on a 1-5 scale, and propose ONE surgical tightening edit if it would meaningfully strengthen alignment.

Criterion 1: Scientific Ambition & Impact

  • Does v3.1 pursue high-impact research in AI for Health & Life Sciences? (Should be obvious yes via §11/§12/§17 — confirm)
  • Is the proposal evidence-based? (Cite §17c track record; confirm references resolve)
  • Does v3.1 define clear, quantifiable success metrics? (Critical: §19a should have numbers. §29 should have falsifiable adoption metrics. Check.)
  • Score this criterion 1-5.

Criterion 2: Innovative & Responsible Use of AI

  • Is AI a core component of the solution? (Yes — WorkGraph orchestrates AI agents. Confirm v3.1 makes this central, not peripheral.)
  • Does it align with Google's Responsible AI Principles? (Check §23 specifically — it should reference Google AI Principles and operationalize them.)
  • Is it open-source licensed? (Check §13, §24, §28, §36 for MIT/CC-BY commitments. Should be explicit and pervasive.)
  • OR does it enable future AI use cases (foundational open dataset)? (BioBench + computation graph corpus = yes. Check §22 dataset claims.)
  • Score 1-5.

Criterion 3: Feasibility

  • Realistic execution plan? (Check §43-§46 milestones for specificity and named deliverables.)
  • Realistic timeline? (3 years; check milestone phasing.)
  • Realistic budget? (Check §38-§41 budget categories sum to $1.5M with concrete allocations.)
  • Necessary technical and domain expertise? (§26 should make this airtight via vg/PGGB/CRISPRme/Tan track record.)
  • Score 1-5.

Criterion 4: Scalability & Sustainability

  • Scaled impact / relevance beyond immediate scope? (Check §17d, §19c, §32 for scaling claims. Beyond founder labs to 50+ adopter labs by m36 = explicit scale claim.)
  • Outputs discovered, adopted, and maintained across scientific domains and geographies? (Check §34a/b sustainability section. MIT license + community governance + open repos = sustainability story.)
  • Score 1-5.

Also check FAQs-derived items

After WebFetching the FAQs PDF, check whether v3.1 reflects:

  • Any specific framing the FAQs encourage (e.g., particular kinds of evidence, specific metric types, partnership language)
  • Any FAQ-flagged prohibitions or commonly-disqualifying claims
  • Any guidance on the Accelerator participation expectations (§25)
  • Any guidance on partner organization framing (§31)
  • Any guidance on budget detail expected (§38-§41)

If the FAQs surface anything v3.1 misses or contradicts, flag it.

Output

Write ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-1-criteria-alignment-audit-20260502.md (under 1500 words):

  1. Headline verdict (one paragraph): submit-as-is / apply-N-tightenings-then-submit / hold for X
  2. Criterion-by-criterion table: | Criterion | v3.1 sections | Tightness 1-5 | Proposed tightening (or 'none') |
  3. FAQ-derived findings: anything from the official FAQs that v3.1 misses or could lean into harder
  4. Surgical tightenings (if any): for each, section + before / after / word recount. Bias toward zero edits unless something is genuinely weak.
  5. Submit-or-tighten recommendation: explicit final call

wg log a one-paragraph summary on this task.

Constraints

  • HARD: focus ONLY on alignment with the 4 criteria + FAQs. Don't audit other things.
  • HARD: bias toward zero edits. v3.1 has been through extensive review. Only flag tightenings that would meaningfully strengthen criterion alignment.
  • HARD: no em-dashes. Word caps respected if you propose any edits.
  • HARD: time-boxed ≤15 min wall-clock.
  • HARD: do NOT edit v3.1 in place unless tightening is trivial AND clearly matches the criteria. Default is propose, don't apply.

Validation

  • FAQs PDF fetched and parsed
  • All 4 criteria scored 1-5 with specific section citations
  • FAQ-derived findings included
  • Submit-or-tighten verdict explicit
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-1-criteria-alignment-audit-YYYYMMDD.md

Depends on

Required by

Log