← graph

v3-fanout-e-29

v3 fanout E: §29 theory of change + §30 risks + §33 (and other prose-heavy)

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-65
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T20:44:15.249671664+00:00
Started2026-05-01T20:52:20.890744398+00:00
Completed2026-05-01T20:57:12.042993901+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,v3,fanout, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.92
└ blocking impact0.90
└ completeness0.95
└ constraint fidelity0.85
└ coordination overhead0.95
└ correctness0.95
└ downstream usability0.92
└ efficiency0.90
└ intent fidelity0.80
└ style adherence0.98

Description

Description

Fanout drafter E. Refits theory of change (§29), risks (§30), §33, and any remaining prose-heavy sections to the v3 spine.

Critical addition: §30 (risks) MUST explicitly address 'reviewers may want a specific scientific deliverable rather than infrastructure.' Mitigation: every case study produces a real research output (preprint, software release, dataset); lab adoption is the falsifiable external metric.

What to read

  1. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-spine-brief.md
  2. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v2.md — current §29, §30, §33, §34a, §34b, §35, §36
  3. CLAUDE.md 'Word Limits' (§29 = 200w, §30 = 100w, §33 = 150w, §34a/b = 50w, §35/§36 = 100w)

What to write

Output: ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-sections/v3-section-29-30-33.md

Cover:

  • §29 Theory of change (200w): mechanism by which the grant produces public benefit. Mature infrastructure → adopted by labs → reliable hybrid human-AI genomics → better science (catches errors earlier, traceable provenance, reproducibility) → downstream clinical and translational benefit. PBC mission spine. Honest about the chain being indirect.
  • §30 Risks (100w): include the new explicit risk 'reviewers may want a specific scientific deliverable.' Other risks per v2: founder distraction (universities), single-point-of-failure on Erik for WorkGraph development, COI on Luca's generative DNA commercial interests (DNA-Diffusion is track record only, not funded scope), competition from incumbent CLI vendors. Mitigations.
  • §33 (150w): refit per v2 topic.
  • §34a, §34b (50w each): refit per v2 topic, likely contact / authorization. Likely carries forward from v2 mostly.
  • §35, §36 (100w each): refit per v2 topic.

If a section's v2 text already aligns with v3 spine, copy verbatim and say so. Don't manufacture rewrites.

Constraints

  • Word caps strict. Recount each.
  • §30 MUST explicitly include the 'reviewers want science deliverable' risk and mitigation.
  • COI disclosure on Luca's generative DNA commercial interests must be present somewhere (§30 or §33).
  • No em-dashes. No PI. Founder order Erik / Luca / Vaughn.
  • No 'wrote this proposal with WorkGraph' recursion claim.
  • Output as markdown.

Validation

  • §29 ≤200 words
  • §30 ≤100 words AND includes 'reviewers want science deliverable' risk
  • §33 ≤150 words
  • §34a/b ≤50 each, §35/§36 ≤100 each
  • COI disclosure present
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-sections/v3-section-29-30-33.md

Depends on

Required by

Log