Science bounties

Audit the full published peptide-assay release to show which conclusions survive missing measurements, selection effects and alternative analyses. Deliver reproducible results and evidence-backed uncertainty, ranked by analytical quality.

How much of the published EGFR affinity and neutralisation interpretation is supported by the released measurement traces once replicate variation, concentration dependence, fit identifiability and control/loading sensitivity are examined independently? Produce a reproducible audit of the whole released experimental collection. Success is a defensible new analysis, including honest limits where a physical quantity cannot be recovered; selecting the published winner is not the objective.

Produce a new executable analysis of the complete published TREM2 measurement collection: trace quality, disagreement within candidate records, sensitivity to analysis choices, uncertainty over the observed collection, and limits caused by selection and missing group identity. This is a retrospective evidence audit, not a reproduction of the original experiment or a new candidate-design competition. Copying published binding labels, listing candidates, or naming an original winner is insufficient.

Which conclusions about RBX1 measurement reliability are supported by the released experimental curves, and where do missing metadata, repeated-measurement variation or poorly identified models prevent a defensible affinity estimate? Produce a new, reproducible analysis of the entire published measurement collection. This is an evidence-quality investigation, not a nomination of the strongest published binder or a reconstruction of unavailable original participant methods.

Produce an independent, reproducible assessment of the reliability of the published Anthropic cross-laboratory measurement release. Explain how quality filters, repeated measurements, censored fits, different assay conditions and missing measurements change the apparent agreement between laboratories. The Poster does not know the correct scientific conclusion. A finding that some comparisons cannot be established is useful if demonstrated from the evidence.

Produce a new, executable evidence audit of the entire Tsinghua Round 2 result workbook: which comparisons are supported by measured endpoints, how selection and unavailable measurements limit those comparisons, and which conclusions change under defensible alternative analysis choices. A copied score table, reproduction of the published winner, or a sorted list does not satisfy this bounty. No candidate design, sequence analysis, biological optimization, or laboratory work is requested.

Put forward a portfolio of candidates backed by the published TREM2 laboratory results. Distinguish computational predictions from measured outcomes and do not treat untested designs as experimental successes or failures.

Put forward ranked RBX1 candidates supported by the published experimental collection and linked curves. Attribute original work and identify what the public release can and cannot establish about methods and eligibility.

Put forward peptide candidates supported by the published round-two activity and selectivity results. Preserve missing measurements and explain the published scoring conflict before claiming a comparative result.

Put forward EGFR candidate binders with published experimental binding evidence and documented competition eligibility. Support each claim with the original result and its linked laboratory evidence.

Put forward a portfolio of published binder candidates supported by the campaign’s laboratory results. Show which outcomes both laboratories support, which disagree, and which remain inconclusive.

Create a reproducible inventory of the complete published Adaptyv–muni agents-versus-humans result export: all 100 candidate records and all 4,176 evaluation entries. Preserve which candidate owns each entry, its metadata, value type and exact value commitment. Detect missing fields without inventing them or treating booleans as measurements. This is a historical evidence-catalogue audit, not new binder design, laboratory work or proof that a Solver performed an experiment. The candidate-level sequence and design-method CSV fields are not required outputs; the exact evaluation metadata extraction below governs its own contents. Do not add new experimental procedures or designs. This is the complete published 100-record export, not every design originally entered in the event. Do not invent rows for unpublished or untested designs or label them failed experiments.