Scientific Review
Scientific Review is where scientists, not software, are designed to decide: they approve or revise experimental work and accept or reject evidence.
This page describes a proposed architecture. It is not evidence of an existing deployment.
How it fits the platform
It is designed to sit between computation and the laboratory and to gate every step toward a confirmed hit with independent mandatory conditions.
Scientists decide
Scientists are designed to approve or revise experimental work packages. Automated checks show whether the required evidence is present and consistent, and a scientist approves the interpretation and the transition.
Independent mandatory conditions
Rights, material identity and biological evidence are designed to be separate, mandatory conditions. Computational consensus cannot replace biological evidence, and campaign thresholds are set before selection.
Named gates
After computational selection, the proposed flow passes material confirmation, assay confirmation, biological confirmation and early-lead qualification. A candidate can be held, sent back for investigation or terminated at any gate.
Decisions leave a trail
Gate decisions are designed to be recorded with the evidence they rest on, and a decision can be invalidated when that evidence changes. Where the demo shows signing, it carries the label Demo signature, not production key.
Sources
- NEWMA Technology Architecture and Workflows § 2
- NEWMA Technology Architecture and Workflows § 3
- NEWMA Product Requirements Document v1.0 § 3.3
See it in the demo
Opens Demo sign-in. After signing in, choose Scientific review & gates (/demo/w4-gates) from the demo dashboard. In the demo this is labelled Demo signature, not production key.