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 that this document supports: co-authorship and shared-affiliation edges over the indexed literature, with the trial record now source-agnostic and each fact carrying the source that supplied it (OQ-11). Every requirement group is in the first release (OQ-01), so nothing waits on sequencing.

Still held. Shared-trial edges remain unbuilt, and not because of a question: no requirement in this document names a trial data source for FR-NET. Inventing one would be a source decision nobody has taken.

Released by OQ-01, OQ-11.