← graph

form-mapping-audit

Form-mapping audit: map v3.1 to actual Google.org form, produce paste guide

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-276
Agent identity8da3b6fc81685ca44a4e15eb35307ab90ce3f0500e9c08b8b0caae848f7d4ce9
Created2026-05-02T03:18:52.581706736+00:00
Started2026-05-02T03:19:16.402565006+00:00
Completed2026-05-02T03:27:04.919499590+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,form-mapping,critical, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.72
└ blocking impact0.70
└ completeness0.78
└ constraint fidelity0.70
└ coordination overhead0.72
└ correctness0.72
└ downstream usability0.68
└ efficiency0.75
└ intent fidelity0.67
└ style adherence0.68

Description

Description

Erik is at the Google.org form ready to paste. v3.1 (/home/erik/google_ai_competition/workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3_1.md, committed at 986222f) was written against an older mental model of the form structure. The actual form structure is documented at /tmp/google-org-form-structure.md (Erik pasted it 2026-05-02).

Known mismatches I (the coordinator) can already see:

  • Form §29 = Risks (200w); v3.1 §29 = Theory of change (200w). Risks content lives at v3.1 §30.
  • Form §30 = Key team members (100w); v3.1 §30 = the science-deliverable risk
  • Form §32 = MULTISELECT (not prose); v3.1 §32 may be prose
  • Form §38-42 = budget categories with subfields (Name + USD + 100w desc per category)
  • Form §43-47 = milestones with subfields (Timeframe + 150w Activities + 100w Outcomes per milestone)

This task does the FULL form-mapping audit and produces a copy-paste-ready guide.

What to read

  1. /tmp/google-org-form-structure.md — actual form structure
  2. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3_1.md (commit 986222f on main)
  3. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-1-final-coherency-review-20260501.md — earlier coherency check (passed but mapped to wrong section numbers)
  4. CLAUDE.md (org info, founder details, COI rules, style)

What to do

Part 1: Map every form question to v3.1 content

For EACH form question §1 through §53 (and certification), produce a row in a paste guide table:

| Form § | Form prompt (short) | Word cap | Type (text/radio/multiselect/yes-no) | v3.1 source location | Paste-ready content | Status |

Status options:

  • READY — v3.1 has matching content of correct length and form
  • REMAP — v3.1 has the right content but in a different section number; specify the source
  • TRIM — v3.1 content is too long for the form cap; produce trimmed version
  • EXPAND — v3.1 content too short or shallow; needs more
  • NEW — v3.1 has nothing for this question; needs new content from CLAUDE.md / track record / COI rules
  • ERIK — Erik must answer (e.g. timezone, exact FTE count, secondary contact name, exact annual budget, certifications)
  • NA — optional question with N/A as right answer

Part 2: Hard-mapping decisions

Resolve these specifically:

a. §29 Risks (200w) — pull v3.1's risk content (currently labeled §30 there) into form §29. Recount to ≤200w.

b. §30 Key team members (100w) — describe 3-5 key roles WITHOUT individual names. v3.1 has §26 (team) with Erik/Luca/Vaughn named. Need to abstract to roles for §30. Suggested 4 roles: WorkGraph architect / lead engineer (full-time), pangenomics + clinical genomics PI co-leads (part-time, drawn from founder bandwidth), software engineer for adoption + integration (full-time hire), organizational researcher (part-time, drawn from founder bandwidth). Don't name people; describe expertise that ensures success.

c. §32 multiselect — pick from: Geographic transfer / Adaptation to different sectors / Exponential user growth / Technical & performance maturity / Ecosystem & integration / Community-led expansion / Policy & standards leadership / Other. Recommend 2-3 most defensible based on v3.1 framing (likely Ecosystem & integration + Community-led expansion + maybe Policy & standards leadership for organizational design framework).

d. §13 Open-source outputs — multiselect. v3.1 implies all of: Software (MIT/Apache), Datasets (CC0/CC-BY for computation graph corpus), Pubs (Open Access). Recommend: Software + Datasets + Pubs.

e. §14 Geographic regions — multiselect. Recommend: Global (since lab adoption target is worldwide).

f. §15 Project stage — radio. WorkGraph is in active production use across founder labs and incorporated the company; that's beyond Proof of Concept. Recommend: Validated Methodology.

g. §22 Existing dataset? — Yes/No. WorkGraph has computation graph datasets. Recommend: Yes.

h. §24 All outputs freely available? — Yes/No. v3.1 commits to MIT and CC-BY. Recommend: Yes.

i. §27 AI Maturity — radio: AI First / AI Adoption / AI Exploration / AI Interest / None. v3.1 is about AI orchestration and uses AI throughout. Recommend: AI First.

j. §31 Partners — v3.1 mentions IGVF Consortium, possibly HPRC. Recommend: list HPRC as 'Existing partner' and IGVF as 'Existing partner' if defensible. Otherwise mark this section optional.

k. §37 Funding request — radio. v3.1 = $1.5M. Confirm.

l. §38-42 Budget breakdown — v3.1 has 4 categories (k Personnel, k Tech Dev, k Equipment, k Amplification = .5M). Map each to §38-§41 with Name + USD + ≤100w description. §42 = optional, leave blank or mark NA.

m. §43-47 Milestones — v3.1 has 4 milestones (§43-§46). Map to form §43-§46 with Timeframe + ≤150w Activities + ≤100w Outcomes per milestone. §47 = optional.

n. §48-52 Ethics — Yes/No each:

  • §48 (commercial contracts with Google): No (none directly related to project)
  • §49 (govt officials in org): YES (founders are at public universities — UTHSC for Erik, MGH+HMS+Broad mostly private but HMS may count, UCL for Vaughn — public)
  • §50 (govt persons involved in project): YES (founder effort allocations from public-university salaries)
  • §51 (law enforcement): No
  • §52 (sanctioned regions): No

o. §53 Explanation — must explain §49 and §50 yes answers. Draft a 2-3 sentence explanation: 'Founders Garrison and Tan are employees of public universities (UTHSC, UCL). Pinello is at MGH/Harvard/Broad. None of these institutions are direct project recipients; project funding flows to Poietic PBC. Founder time on the project is contributed under university policies for outside engagement.'

p. Certification — Erik must check Yes.

Part 3: New content where needed

For §1-10, §12, §13, §14, §15, §22, §24, §27, §32, §37, §48-52: produce the answers as a single 'Section I-VI mechanical fields' block at the top of the paste guide.

For §30, §32, §53: draft the new content needed.

For §43-§47: ensure each milestone has BOTH Activities ≤150w AND Outcomes ≤100w as separate fields.

Part 4: M4 / H7 verdict refresh

Erik asked: 'm4 m7 seem hardcore? could we just link to the workgraph traces?'

Recommendation: with both ulivo trace URLs now public (https://ulivo.poietic.life/wg/feeds/incorporation-trace/ and https://ulivo.poietic.life/wg/feeds/poietic-website/), §36 (public presence) and §28 (technical feasibility) can lead with the trace URLs as primary evidence. The stale GitHub repos (deep-research-competition with KRAS framing, phr-methodology-comparison with 1 commit) are demoted from being primary evidence to being incidental org-page residue. Risk: a reviewer who org-spelunks finds them. Mitigation: archive whenever Erik has 30 seconds at GitHub admin (still recommended); not a blocker.

Include a paragraph in the paste guide: 'M4/H7 not blockers given the live traces. Archive at convenience; submission can proceed without.'

Output

Write ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-1-form-mapping-paste-guide-20260502.md:

  1. Headline verdict: Is v3.1 ready to paste? With what remapping?
  2. Section I-VI mechanical fields block — every Erik-only or short-answer field with the recommended answer
  3. Paste guide table — every form §, with v3.1 source and paste-ready content
  4. New content drafts — §30 (team roles), §32 (multiselect picks), §53 (govt-persons explanation)
  5. Erik-only items — what only Erik can supply (annual budget, FTE count, secondary contact, certifications, attachments)
  6. M4/H7 verdict — submission can proceed without; archive at convenience
  7. Submission order recommendation — which fields to paste in what sequence to minimize back-and-forth

wg log a one-paragraph summary on this task.

Constraints

  • HARD: respect every word cap from the form structure file. Recount.
  • HARD: no em-dashes. No PI language. Founder order Erik / Luca / Vaughn (where named, only in §26-equivalent and contact info).
  • HARD: §30 must NOT name individuals (form requires roles only).
  • HARD: §29 must contain Risks content within 200w.
  • HARD: every required form field has a recommendation or 'ERIK' tag.
  • HARD: produce paste-ready text for every prose field (Erik shouldn't have to edit; just copy and paste).

Validation

  • Every form question §1-§53 + certification covered in the paste guide table
  • §29 Risks content ≤200w
  • §30 team roles ≤100w, no individual names
  • §32 multiselect choices recommended
  • §53 explanation drafted for govt-persons
  • All multiselect / radio fields have recommended answers
  • Erik-only items clearly listed
  • M4/H7 link-to-traces verdict included
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-1-form-mapping-paste-guide-YYYYMMDD.md

Depends on

Required by

Log