Workflow Recommendation Confidence

This route answers the question after grounding: how strong may the current recommendation sound once withheld evidence, comparator loss, and regret review are taken seriously.

bijux-proteomics-intelligence owns this because recommendation confidence is not a summary score. It is the pressure surface that stops attractive workflow stories from sounding more certain than the shipped challenge artifacts earn.

What Ships

The current confidence bundle is built around four public artifact families:

• artifacts/intelligence/benchmark-decisions/counterfactual_recommendations.json
• artifacts/intelligence/benchmark-decisions/workflow_overconfidence_audit.json
• artifacts/intelligence/benchmark-decisions/workflow_underconfidence_audit.json
• artifacts/intelligence/benchmark-decisions/recommendation_regret_ledger.json

Together they show how fragile the current public recommendation sentence still is under evidence loss and hindsight review.

What The Current Bundle Says

• all five flagship public families currently collapse toward do_not_recommend when comparator evidence is removed
• all five flagship public families currently collapse toward do_not_recommend when literature support is removed
• all five flagship public families currently collapse toward do_not_recommend when lab burden is doubled from the current shipped posture
• targeted currently carries the strongest overconfidence score at 0.67
• none of the current flagship families yet shows a hindsight-backed underconfidence event strong enough to justify broader public wording

How To Read Recommendation Confidence

• read the counterfactual report first when the question is whether the current call survives one missing evidence axis
• read the overconfidence audit when the sentence sounds cleaner than the challenge surfaces justify
• read the regret ledger when the question is which kind of mistake maintainers are still most likely to make if hidden evidence is revealed later

What This Means For Public Language

The current recommendation layer is materially more serious than it was at v0.3.7, but it still does not earn decision-grade authority.

Why:

• the public sentence still breaks too easily under evidence removal
• some families still carry visible overconfidence pressure
• downstream assay burden still narrows otherwise attractive recommendation stories
• LFQ, PTM, and targeted still stop at bounded recommendation posture

That is why the stronger current product still needs bounded recommendation language.

Family-Level Reading

family	confidence reading today	why the sentence still stays narrow
dda	stronger than before, but still fragile under evidence removal	comparator and lab-burden loss still collapse the recommendation
dia	bounded outsider-facing recommendation support	evidence and consequence loss still narrow the call
lfq	real review-grade posture	missingness and transfer pressure still make the stronger sentence too expensive
ptm	stronger analytical posture than before	consequence confidence still lags localization strength
targeted	strongest current overconfidence pressure	calibration and interference risk still make broader certainty unsafe

Best Next Routes

• Open Workflow Claim Grounding when the question is whether the sentence is supported at all.
• Open Lab Consequence when the question is whether downstream burden still narrows the apparently reasonable recommendation.
• Open Workflow Consequence Maps when the question is which downstream boundary currently caps the strongest honest public sentence.
• Open What Changed The Recommendation when you need the exact evidence-removal, burden, or observed-outcome driver.
• Open Decision Support when the full combined route matters more than the recommendation layer by itself.

Boundary

This page owns recommendation-pressure and confidence limits. It should not pretend to replace evidence grounding or lab consequence just because those later surfaces consume the recommendation output.