Requirements

Basis is stated, so rule 0.3 does not apply. Buildable now: the fit-score structure itself, scoped per (customer molecule x expert), with the four named component slots that Dimitris Kyriacou stated (mechanism relevance, indication relevance, trial record, ability to enrol) as first-class,...

Still held. Nothing. Both halves are answered. The trial record is source-agnostic: whichever public sources exist for each expert are used, and the source of every trial fact is stored with it (OQ-11). The ability-to-enrol input is the count of trials in which the expert appears as an investigator in ClinicalTrials.gov or the EU trial portal, labelled on the profile as a trial count and never as a measured enrolment figure, and no investigator or site performance database is licensed (FD-01). The weights are equal at launch, 25 each across mechanism, disease, trial record and enrolment, with every customer adjustment logged and presets published once the first customers have used the product (OQ-12, NP-14). Equal weights here are a decision with a date, which is what separates them from the placeholder rule 0.5 forbids.

Released by OQ-11, OQ-12, NP-14, FD-01.

All of it, and at launch it has nothing to do, which is the point: the answers license no outside data. Identity resolution runs on ORCID, OpenAlex and NPI, which are free to use, plus each customer's own CRM IDs (OQ-20), and no doctor reference database is licensed; FD-01 decides the same for enrolment data. What this requirement builds is the source register: every field carries a source label, shown on the profile and in exports, and a paid source added later needs its own decision and a written licence before a single field may use it (NP-05).

Still held. Nothing.

Released by OQ-20, NP-05, FD-01.