Science bounties

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.

Create a reproducible inventory of the complete published GEM–Adaptyv RBX1 result export: all 322 candidate records and all 9,312 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. No sequences or experimental instructions belong in the output.

Produce a reproducible audit of all 1,522 data rows in the published Tsinghua Round 2 workbook. Show reported scores, missing measurements and stored formulas without turning blanks into zero or inventing laboratory results. This is historical data analysis, not new peptide design, new experiments or a claim that the Solver performed the original laboratory work. Do not output sequences or experimental procedures. The task covers every data row, with the eight specified result columns; other columns are not required.

Audit the complete Adaptyv EGFR competition result tables: all 402 summary rows, 953 replicate rows and 252 similarity rows. Produce a source-linked ledger and a deterministic ordering of the reported positive results. This is historical evidence analysis, not a new binder-design competition, new laboratory work, a claim of physical sample custody or a recreation of all original organizer eligibility decisions. Do not output sequences, DNA or structural designs.

Produce a reproducible evidence audit of the complete published campaign: all 1,440 design records, all 1,440 laboratory summary records and all 10,522 measurement records. Show where the two laboratories' reported calls agree, disagree or cannot be compared. Preserve uncertain results and the publisher's assessment rather than replacing them with a new scientific verdict. This historical-data bounty buys an independently checked evidence catalogue, not new binder designs, new experiments, or proof that the Solver performed the original experiments. Do not propose sequences or experimental procedures.