Workflow Claim Grounding

This route answers a narrow but essential question: which public workflow sentences are actually supported by named evidence, and which still survive only as bounded or contradicted wording.

bijux-proteomics-knowledge owns this because sentence grounding is still evidence work. It is where the repository proves that public trust language is anchored to explicit scientific support instead of sounding careful by style alone.

What Ships

The grounding surface is built around three workflow-family artifacts:

• a claim citation table for sentences with direct named support
• an unsupported-claim ledger for sentences that still overrun the current evidence
• a contradiction triage report for sentences that are supported and still scientifically narrowed

These surfaces cover claim-bearing prose in flagship trust pages and public review packets. They intentionally do not treat every heading, link label, or metadata field as a scientific claim.

How To Read The Grounding Pack

• start with the claim citation table when the question is whether a sentence has direct support
• move to the unsupported-claim ledger when the sentence sounds smoother than the actual proof
• move to contradiction triage when the sentence is partly supported and still scientifically narrowed by conflict or thin transfer

The result should be one clear answer: supported, bounded, or not yet earned.

Workflow Coverage

family	grounding surface role today	likely reason a sentence still narrows
dda	strong support for bounded outsider language	execution realism remains narrower than full live-engine parity
dia	strong support for bounded outsider language	library incompleteness and downstream consequence still narrow broader wording
lfq	real support for review-grade language	missingness, normalization, and transfer pressure still block stronger wording
ptm	strong support for localization and bounded trust language	consequence confidence remains weaker than localization evidence
targeted	strong support for bounded outsider language	calibration, interference, and follow-up burden still narrow broader certainty
multiplex	support for internal-support-only language	the current stress packet still defeats outsider trust

Why This Surface Matters More Now

The repository now has enough product depth that wording can fail in more interesting ways:

• core can be scientifically stronger than the release sentence
• runtime can be reproducible while the claim language is still too broad
• recommendation posture can be cautious while one sentence still sounds too smooth

Grounding keeps those mismatches visible.

What This Surface Still Does Not Decide

• final recommendation posture by itself
• downstream assay worth by itself
• runtime realism by itself

Grounding answers whether the sentence is scientifically supported. The next layers decide whether it still deserves to sound that strong after judgment and consequence pressure are included.

Best Next Routes

• Open Workflow Recommendation Confidence when the question becomes whether supported wording is still too confident.
• Open Lab Consequence when the question becomes whether the follow-up burden still narrows the supported sentence.
• Open Decision Support when the reader needs the full route from support to judgment to consequence.

Boundary

This page owns scientific sentence support. It should hand off before pretending that grounded support alone settles recommendation strength or lab meaning.