What Changed The Recommendation¶
This page answers the blunt question a hostile reviewer will ask next: what actually changes the recommendation once comparator pressure, literature pressure, lab burden, or observed outcome enters the picture?
It exists because the repository now has enough depth that recommendation language can move for real reasons rather than just cleaner prose. If the docs do not name those reasons clearly, the product sounds more arbitrary than it is and more certain than it deserves.
How To Read These Counterfactuals¶
- Treat each family row as a stress test on the released sentence rather than a marketing recap of the current result.
- If removing one evidence axis or increasing downstream burden collapses the call, the weaker posture is part of the truthful product surface today.
- Observed outcome revisions matter only when they change the next honest sentence, not when they merely add more activity around the same uncertainty.
What Counts As A Real Change Driver¶
- a comparator path that keeps the public sentence from outrunning transfer pressure
- a literature or grounding surface that keeps the scientific story from sounding cleaner than its evidence state
- a lab-burden shift that makes the same analytical story no longer worth the spend
- an observed outcome that materially changes the next sentence instead of just adding more work around the same uncertainty
dda¶
- current posture:
recommend_with_downgrade - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision: no shipped recommendation revision yet
- primary change driver: current public recommendation still holds under shipped evidence
- driver signals: none
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/dda.json,Removing comparator evidence collapses the current bounded recommendation because the shipped family still relies on comparator pressure to keep its claim scope honest.,Removing literature evidence collapses the recommendation because the current family still depends on literature freshness and contradiction handling to keep review-grade support scientifically bounded.,Doubling lab burden turns the current bounded recommendation into an unjustified spend because the family still sits at review-grade rather than decision-grade evidence.
dia¶
- current posture:
recommend_with_downgrade - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision:
do_not_recommend - primary change driver: The matrix-shift repeat exposed library-conditioned fragility, so the follow-up consumed queue and still forced the recommendation back to refusal.
- driver signals: library dependence was already the dominant public cap on DIA authority, the thinner package family still showed unstable transfer under matrix shift
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/dia.json,Removing comparator evidence collapses the current bounded recommendation because the shipped family still relies on comparator pressure to keep its claim scope honest.,Removing literature evidence collapses the recommendation because the current family still depends on literature freshness and contradiction handling to keep review-grade support scientifically bounded.,Doubling lab burden turns the current bounded recommendation into an unjustified spend because the family still sits at review-grade rather than decision-grade evidence.,library dependence was already the dominant public cap on DIA authority,the thinner package family still showed unstable transfer under matrix shift
lfq¶
- current posture:
recommend_with_downgrade - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision: no shipped recommendation revision yet
- primary change driver: current public recommendation still holds under shipped evidence
- driver signals: none
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/lfq.json,Removing comparator evidence collapses the current bounded recommendation because the shipped family still relies on comparator pressure to keep its claim scope honest.,Removing literature evidence collapses the recommendation because the current family still depends on literature freshness and contradiction handling to keep review-grade support scientifically bounded.,Doubling lab burden turns the current bounded recommendation into an unjustified spend because the family still sits at review-grade rather than decision-grade evidence.
multiplex¶
- current posture:
do_not_recommend - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision: no shipped recommendation revision yet
- primary change driver: no public counterfactual report is shipped for this family because recommendation posture is already held below outsider-facing consequence closure
- driver signals: none
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/multiplex.json
ptm¶
- current posture:
recommend_with_downgrade - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision:
recommend_with_downgrade - primary change driver: The PTM follow-up clarified which site-level claims survive ambiguity pressure, so one previously refused path becomes worth a bounded recommendation with explicit caveats.
- driver signals: the benchmark already isolated one targetable site family even while broader occupancy remained blocked, orthogonal validation pressure was narrower than the earlier blanket PTM refusal implied
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/ptm.json,Removing comparator evidence collapses the current bounded recommendation because the shipped family still relies on comparator pressure to keep its claim scope honest.,Removing literature evidence collapses the recommendation because the current family still depends on literature freshness and contradiction handling to keep review-grade support scientifically bounded.,Doubling lab burden turns the current bounded recommendation into an unjustified spend because the family still sits at review-grade rather than decision-grade evidence.,the benchmark already isolated one targetable site family even while broader occupancy remained blocked,orthogonal validation pressure was narrower than the earlier blanket PTM refusal implied
targeted¶
- current posture:
recommend_with_downgrade - without comparator evidence:
do_not_recommend - without literature evidence:
do_not_recommend - with doubled lab burden:
do_not_recommend - observed outcome revision:
recommend_with_downgrade - primary change driver: The targeted follow-up delivered useful calibration and interference clarification quickly enough to justify a bounded recommendation where the original benchmark packet stayed refused.
- driver signals: transition-level QC was already specific enough to support one narrow closure loop, the carryover companion package exposed a calibration question that a small targeted repeat could answer efficiently
- evidence paths:
artifacts/intelligence/recommendation-packets/targeted.json,Removing comparator evidence collapses the current bounded recommendation because the shipped family still relies on comparator pressure to keep its claim scope honest.,Removing literature evidence collapses the recommendation because the current family still depends on literature freshness and contradiction handling to keep review-grade support scientifically bounded.,Doubling lab burden turns the current bounded recommendation into an unjustified spend because the family still sits at review-grade rather than decision-grade evidence.,transition-level QC was already specific enough to support one narrow closure loop,the carryover companion package exposed a calibration question that a small targeted repeat could answer efficiently
Reading Rule¶
If comparator removal, literature removal, doubled assay burden, or one observed outcome can collapse the recommendation, the public wording should stay at the weaker posture immediately.
Why This Page Matters More Now¶
- several families now have real benchmark, runtime, and recommendation packets, so the next honest question is what actually moves the call
- a stronger repository needs clearer counterfactuals, not just stronger summaries
- this page keeps the recommendation story tied to evidence, burden, and observed outcomes instead of letting it drift into style