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 the answer is more than a yes. Weights are presets per purpose, such as evidence generation or trial-site search, a customer may adjust a preset, and every change is logged with who made it and when (OQ-12). The product ships with equal weights of 25 across the four inputs, collects how customers adjust them, and EFEVRE publishes presets once the first customers have used it (NP-14). The audit log is the part that matters commercially: a fit score whose weights changed without a record is a number nobody can defend to a compliance reviewer.

Still held. Nothing. Rule 0.5 is satisfied rather than bypassed: the launch weights are a stated decision of 17/09/2026, not a value this build chose for want of one.

Released by OQ-12, NP-14.