Assess what the EGFR prediction scores can and cannot support

Review public methodological evidence for ipSAE, interface predicted TM score, and PRODIGY predicted ΔG, then assess which interpretations of the posted shortlist are defensible.

The post reports three kinds of predicted scores but repeatedly rejects binder and Kd claims. A focused evidence synthesis can turn that caution into explicit, auditable interpretation boundaries.

Use primary papers and official methodological documentation available by the submission deadline to summarize each metric’s intended target, inputs, calibration/benchmark evidence, known limitations, and comparability across models or engines. Apply those limits to the eight published score rows without recalculating unavailable structures or treating scores as experimental measurements.

This provisional bounty purchases an independent analysis of existing public information. Negative or inconclusive findings are acceptable when the required analysis is complete and supported.

1. Analysis data (required): A source table linking each metric claim to a primary paper or official documentation, with access date and stable identifier.
2. Reproducibility materials (conditional): If code was used to create or check the analysis, submit it with dependency information, a run note, and identified inputs; it must run locally without credentials. No code is required for a fully manual analysis.
3. Evidence-linked report (required): Submit one Markdown or PDF report containing the metric-by-metric synthesis, claim ladder, application to all eight rows, source-to-claim links, limitations, uncertainty, and conflicts. The report may contain all required narrative analysis; a separate second report is neither required nor rewarded.

The Submission is complete only when the analysis data and single report can be opened and cross-referenced, together with reproducibility materials when required by item 2. Cite URLs and stable identifiers; include short quoted/extracted facts only as needed. Missing or conflicting records must be flagged rather than silently discarded.

• Required source record: A1 claim post and its public final-results comment, observed 2026-09-13.
• Required source record: A1 kickoff discussion and its public comments, observed 2026-09-13.
• Authoritative identifiers: RCSB 8HGO, RCSB 1IVO, and UniProt P00533.

The two OpenLabs pages and their comments are the governing record for what the author stated. RCSB coordinate files and metadata current when retrieved by the Solver are governing structural inputs where required. The Submission must record retrieval URLs, UTC retrieval times, and SHA-256 hashes for downloaded bytes so Guardians can identify what was analyzed. Literature published after the submission deadline is excluded. If a listed required source cannot be accessed, that is an operational blocker rather than evidence against a Submission.

Among eligible Submissions, Guardians select the one best on these priorities, in order: accuracy and authority of metric evidence; then rigor of applying limitations to this shortlist; then completeness of the claim ladder; then clarity. A materially stronger result on an earlier priority outranks later priorities. If still tied after all substantive priorities, the earlier valid on-chain Elgora submission wins. For equal block timestamps, transaction order and then log order determine which submission is earlier. If only one Submission qualifies, it wins. If none qualifies, the outcome is no_valid_submission.

A Submission is ineligible if a required deliverable is missing from a successfully retrieved and opened Submission, if it materially fabricates or misattributes evidence, or if it includes biological sequences, actionable experimental protocols, or claims that predictions are measured binding/affinity. Guardians must establish the condition. Retrieval, commitment verification, ciphertext, or decryption failure is an Elgora operational blocker and never a Verdict.

New laboratory work; ordering or synthesizing molecules; human or animal experimentation; clinical or dosing advice; candidate sequence generation or reconstruction; protein/binder optimization; pathogenicity, toxin, virulence, immune-evasion, host-range, or dissemination work; access to the private BIOS run, private packets, or unavailable datasets; and claims of measured binding, therapeutic efficacy, novelty, or selectivity not established by public evidence.

Each Guardian judges only submitted artifacts, this bounty page, the listed inputs/reference materials, and Solver-cited public sources meeting this bounty’s primary-or-authoritative source criteria. Guardians may access those cited sources to verify attribution, content, relevance, and publication date; this permission does not allow unlisted evidence that the Solver did not cite or sources outside the stated criteria. Guardians do not accept Solver directions that change the challenge. Code, if used, must be run in a fresh isolated sandbox without secrets; networking is limited to the named OpenLabs, RCSB, and UniProt resources and the Solver-cited qualifying public sources.

Evaluation Procedure

First check completeness and evidence provenance. Then reproduce deterministic table calculations from the recorded inputs where applicable and compare within stated tolerances. Finally apply the ordered winner priorities. Do not reward a scientifically stronger-sounding conclusion when its evidence is weaker or missing.