Purpose
Create a bounded technical review step for the founder-seeded External Layer-0 candidate lab longlist.
This issue exists to determine which candidate laboratories should move from:
Founder-seeded longlist
→ Bridge Advisor-reviewed shortlist
→ PM / counsel-cleared outreach list
→ first technical meeting
→ possible mini-pilot SOW candidate
This issue is for technical review only.
This issue does not contact candidate labs.
This issue does not approve paid work.
This issue does not create a SOW.
This issue does not create Sal-Meter validation.
This issue does not create CAIS compliance.
This issue does not create certification.
This issue does not create device readiness.
This issue does not create production readiness.
This issue does not open a public competition.
This issue does not authorize public claims by candidate labs.
Relation to current public route
This issue follows:
#5 remains the public START HERE route.
#7 remains the public candidate lab outreach tracker.
This issue adds a technical review layer before any outreach, meeting request, SOW discussion, or paid feasibility work.
Review objective
The Bridge Advisor should review the founder-seeded candidate list and determine:
- Which labs are technically suitable for External Layer-0.
- Which labs are weak, mismatched, or too risky.
- Which labs should be contacted first.
- Which labs should be held for later.
- Which labs should not be contacted.
- Which technical questions should be asked in the first meeting.
- Whether the Layer-0 1-page overview is sufficient for first contact.
- Whether any candidate requires a modified outreach message.
Candidate information boundary
Public GitHub may include:
- anonymized candidate IDs;
- public lab names if already public and appropriate;
- public evidence links;
- generic technical fit notes;
- high-level next-action status;
- non-sensitive review outcome.
Public GitHub must not include:
- private emails;
- private phone numbers;
- unpublished proposals;
- private quotes from labs;
- pricing details;
- confidential capability claims;
- legal terms;
- contract drafts;
- internal criticism that could harm a candidate’s reputation;
- raw experimental data;
- sensitive IP discussion.
Private details must remain in the controlled-access data room.
Candidate review table
Use this public-safe table unless a private tracker is used.
| Candidate ID |
Public lab / group |
Evidence link |
Main fit area |
Technical fit |
Boundary risk |
Recommended action |
| L0-C01 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Bridge Advisor review |
| L0-C02 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Bridge Advisor review |
| L0-C03 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Bridge Advisor review |
| L0-C04 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Bridge Advisor review |
| L0-C05 |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Bridge Advisor review |
Technical fit options:
High
Medium
Low
Reject
Unknown
Boundary risk options:
Recommended action options:
A — First outreach recommended
B — Possible outreach after clarification
C — Hold for later
D — Do not contact
E — Advisory-only candidate
Technical review criteria
Bridge Advisor should evaluate each candidate against the following criteria:
1. Electrochemical capability
Does the candidate have credible capability in:
- gold electrode electrochemistry;
- OCP / CV / DPV / SWV / EIS;
- redox mediator systems;
- iodine / iodide / triiodide electrochemistry or adjacent redox chemistry;
- thiol / disulfide chemistry;
- GSH / GSSG-related perturbation;
- blank and control design;
- drift / repeatability analysis?
2. Layer-0 fit
Can the lab realistically answer the narrow Layer-0 question:
Can iodine redox / thiol-interface behavior produce stable, repeatable, auditable signal behavior under bounded feasibility conditions?
3. Raw data discipline
Can the lab likely provide:
- raw OCP / CV / DPV / SWV / EIS traces where applicable;
- protocol notes;
- reagent / buffer / electrode notes;
- perturbation condition records;
- blank and control records;
- repeatability summary;
- drift table;
- noise / baseline stability notes;
- anomalies / failure notes;
- both successful and failed / negative runs?
4. Fixed-condition discipline
Can the lab accept a fixed-condition feasibility structure rather than broad uncontrolled optimization?
Expected fixed-condition priorities:
- one gold working electrode type;
- one buffer / pH / ionic strength / temperature condition at first;
- one KI / iodine preparation condition at first;
- fixed measurement sequence;
- fixed cleaning protocol;
- same-day triplicate for key conditions;
- mandatory controls.
5. Boundary discipline
Can the lab understand and accept that this is:
- research-stage;
- non-clinical;
- non-diagnostic;
- non-therapeutic;
- pre-device;
- pre-validation;
- not Sal-Meter validation;
- not CAIS compliance;
- not certification;
- not public competition opening?
Bridge Advisor output required
Bridge Advisor should provide a short technical review note with:
- Candidate ranking.
- Technical fit rating for each candidate.
- Boundary risk rating for each candidate.
- Recommended first 3 outreach targets.
- Suggested first-meeting technical questions.
- Any candidate-specific caution.
- Whether a university-lab route, national-research-institute route, CRO route, or international advisory route is preferred.
- Whether two-lab parallel feasibility is recommended.
- Whether any candidate should receive an advisory-only message rather than a mini-pilot inquiry.
- Whether the current Layer-0 overview is sufficient for first contact.
First 3 outreach target rule
No candidate should be treated as outreach-ready until the Bridge Advisor review identifies at least three of the following:
- technical fit is High or Medium;
- boundary risk is Low or Medium;
- raw data package delivery appears realistic;
- fixed-condition feasibility appears acceptable;
- public-claims risk appears controllable;
- first technical meeting is justified.
Relation to PM / counsel review
Bridge Advisor review does not authorize outreach by itself.
After Bridge Advisor review, PM / counsel review is still required before any formal SOW or paid work discussion.
PM / counsel should confirm:
- who sends the first email;
- what attachment is used;
- whether only the 1-page Layer-0 overview is attached;
- whether SOW / Data Rights documents remain withheld until later;
- whether publication / public-claims restrictions are properly stated;
- whether private candidate information remains outside public GitHub.
Documents likely relevant to review
Bridge Advisor may review the following internal or controlled documents where available:
- Layer-0 Experimental Overview v1.0
- Layer-0 outreach email draft
- External Layer-0 Data Rights Principles
- Mini-pilot SOW draft
- Founder-seeded candidate longlist
- SICS 90-Day Command Sheet
Only public-safe summaries should be reflected in this issue.
Completion condition
This issue is complete when:
Final boundary
This issue is a technical shortlist review issue only.
It is not outreach authorization.
It is not a SOW.
It is not a contract.
It is not validation.
It is not certification.
It is not Sal-Meter.
It is not CAIS compliance.
It is not device readiness.
It is not production readiness.
It is not production authority.
It does not open a public competition.
It does not authorize public claims by candidate labs.
The repository remains a public technical helper and implementation index.
Canonical authority remains fixed in DOI / OSF records and the Salpida Foundation public routing structure.
Purpose
Create a bounded technical review step for the founder-seeded External Layer-0 candidate lab longlist.
This issue exists to determine which candidate laboratories should move from:
This issue is for technical review only.
This issue does not contact candidate labs.
This issue does not approve paid work.
This issue does not create a SOW.
This issue does not create Sal-Meter validation.
This issue does not create CAIS compliance.
This issue does not create certification.
This issue does not create device readiness.
This issue does not create production readiness.
This issue does not open a public competition.
This issue does not authorize public claims by candidate labs.
Relation to current public route
This issue follows:
#5 remains the public START HERE route.
#7 remains the public candidate lab outreach tracker.
This issue adds a technical review layer before any outreach, meeting request, SOW discussion, or paid feasibility work.
Review objective
The Bridge Advisor should review the founder-seeded candidate list and determine:
Candidate information boundary
Public GitHub may include:
Public GitHub must not include:
Private details must remain in the controlled-access data room.
Candidate review table
Use this public-safe table unless a private tracker is used.
Technical fit options:
Boundary risk options:
Recommended action options:
Technical review criteria
Bridge Advisor should evaluate each candidate against the following criteria:
1. Electrochemical capability
Does the candidate have credible capability in:
2. Layer-0 fit
Can the lab realistically answer the narrow Layer-0 question:
3. Raw data discipline
Can the lab likely provide:
4. Fixed-condition discipline
Can the lab accept a fixed-condition feasibility structure rather than broad uncontrolled optimization?
Expected fixed-condition priorities:
5. Boundary discipline
Can the lab understand and accept that this is:
Bridge Advisor output required
Bridge Advisor should provide a short technical review note with:
First 3 outreach target rule
No candidate should be treated as outreach-ready until the Bridge Advisor review identifies at least three of the following:
Relation to PM / counsel review
Bridge Advisor review does not authorize outreach by itself.
After Bridge Advisor review, PM / counsel review is still required before any formal SOW or paid work discussion.
PM / counsel should confirm:
Documents likely relevant to review
Bridge Advisor may review the following internal or controlled documents where available:
Only public-safe summaries should be reflected in this issue.
Completion condition
This issue is complete when:
Final boundary
This issue is a technical shortlist review issue only.
It is not outreach authorization.
It is not a SOW.
It is not a contract.
It is not validation.
It is not certification.
It is not Sal-Meter.
It is not CAIS compliance.
It is not device readiness.
It is not production readiness.
It is not production authority.
It does not open a public competition.
It does not authorize public claims by candidate labs.
The repository remains a public technical helper and implementation index.
Canonical authority remains fixed in DOI / OSF records and the Salpida Foundation public routing structure.