← graph

research-liverpool-hive

Research: Liverpool Hive Mind grant — what was funded, what was proposed

Metadata

Statusabandoned ‖ paused
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T20:01:40.002277304+00:00
Started2026-05-01T20:03:29.954088176+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,research,reframe, eval-scheduled

Description

Description

Erik is reframing the Google.org application hours before submission. The new spine: WorkGraph as reliable, careful, auditable infrastructure for hybrid human-AI work in clinical and comparative genomics. To position correctly, we need to understand what Google.org actually funded under the parallel program — Liverpool's Hive Mind grant — so the reframe can complement honestly, not duplicate or undercut.

CLAUDE.md frames Hive Mind as 'inaugural-cohort Hive Mind grant addressing hybrid coordination for wet-lab autonomous chemistry.' That's our internal positioning; we need the actual public detail.

Project convention: notes for Erik go to ~/poietic.life/notes/.

What to find out

Use web research (WebSearch / WebFetch). Cite sources. If a source is paywalled or unavailable, say so rather than guess.

  1. The grant itself. What is Liverpool's Hive Mind grant? Funder (Google.org? Other Google entity?), program name, amount, duration, year awarded. URLs to the official announcement.

  2. The PI(s) and team. Lead investigators, institutions, advisors. Particular attention to anyone publishing on hybrid human-AI coordination, multi-agent systems, or autonomous laboratories.

  3. The actual scientific spine. What did they propose to do? Domain (autonomous chemistry? Self-driving labs? Materials? Drug discovery?). What is the wet-lab work specifically — synthesis, characterization, optimization?

  4. The coordination infrastructure claim. What did they say they'd build for hybrid human-AI coordination? Is it software? A robotic platform? A methodology? What is the reusable artifact?

  5. Public deliverables to date. Have they published preprints, software releases, blog posts, conference talks since the grant? What does the trajectory look like?

  6. Positioning relative to Poietic PBC. Where do their claims and ours touch? Where are we genuinely complementary (different domain, different coordination problem) versus potentially overlapping (both claim hybrid human-AI coordination infrastructure)? Be honest about overlap risk — Erik needs to know if reviewers might say 'didn't we just fund this?'

Output

Write ~/poietic.life/notes/liverpool-hive-mind-research-20260501.md with these sections:

  • The grant (one paragraph + URLs)
  • The team (named, with one-line bios)
  • What they proposed and built (concrete: domain, infrastructure, deliverables)
  • Public artifacts to date (with links)
  • Honest positioning vs Poietic PBC (overlap, complementarity, risk of redundancy critique)
  • One-line acknowledgment text that the v3 application could use to acknowledge them respectfully and stake out our complementary slot

Cap: 1000 words total. Be terse and source-cited.

wg log a one-paragraph summary.

Constraints

  • No em-dashes (CLAUDE.md style rule).
  • Cite URLs for every factual claim. If you can't find a source, say 'unable to verify' rather than asserting.
  • This is research, not advocacy. If Liverpool's claims are stronger than ours in some dimension, say so.

Validation

  • Grant identified with funder, amount, duration
  • PI(s) named
  • Scientific domain and infrastructure plan summarized concretely
  • Public artifacts to date listed with URLs
  • Honest overlap analysis written
  • Suggested acknowledgment line drafted
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/liverpool-hive-mind-research-YYYYMMDD.md
  • Under 1000 words

Depends on

Required by

Log