Requirements

All of it, in the shape the answers of 17/09/2026 gave it. The expert a pharma user meets is an anonymous card carrying profession, country and topic, and no name, no employer and no question text (OQ-05). A contact request is recorded, passed to the expert, and the identity is revealed only on acceptance, with the acceptance stored as a consent record naming the company and the wording shown (OQ-42). The link between a card and a person stays inside the signal layer, which no service outside it may read. 'Sustained and specific enquiry' is the topic score of OQ-06, built from the number, recency and specificity of questions, with the top 1.4 percent of a disease area flagged until the validation study replaces the cut-off (NP-15). Research Workspace questions feed anonymous trends only, and reach a named card solely for an academic who switched on 'contactable by pharma' (OQ-07, NP-03, FD-02). The 12 researchers of the August 2026 note are excluded from every list, card and profile (OQ-33). The negative-publication verification this build already had is unchanged and is what evidences the claim.

Still held. Nothing is held by a question. One operational bound stands and is not a gate: OncoSkepsis signals are shown only once a third hospital joins (NP-01, OQ-40), so a view with nothing releasable says so, naming the minimum, rather than showing an empty result.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-06, OQ-07, OQ-33, OQ-42, NP-03, NP-15, FD-02.

All of it, under the two minimums and the anonymity the answers set. A field signal is shown when at least 8 distinct people stand behind it (OQ-14) and, where it comes from OncoSkepsis, at least 3 distinct institutions with the 5 percent dominance check (OQ-40, NP-12). Counts are rounded to the nearest 5. Nobody is named: a pharma user sees an anonymous card, and an identity is revealed only when the expert or clinician accepts a contact request, which is stored as a consent record naming the company and the wording shown (OQ-05, OQ-42).

Still held. Nothing. Below either minimum there is nothing to show, and the view says so, naming the minimum rather than rendering an empty result that reads as a quiet field.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-14, OQ-40, OQ-42, NP-12.

All of it. What a pharma user sees about a named expert is settled: the anonymous card until the expert accepts a contact request, and the revealed profile after (OQ-05). Signal-derived attributes on that profile obey the same minimums as everywhere else, 8 contributors and, for anything from OncoSkepsis, 3 institutions with the dominance check (OQ-14, OQ-40).

Still held. Nothing. The link between a card and a real person stays inside the signal layer, and no service outside it may read that link: the reveal is a consent record, not a lookup.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-14, OQ-42.

All of it. The trigger is the OQ-06 topic score crossing the NP-15 cut-off, the top 1.4 percent within a disease area, rather than a question count nobody stated. Delivery is the weekly digest and the CRM task of OQ-22. What the alert may say is bounded by the same minimums as any other view, and it names no expert who has not accepted a contact request (OQ-05, OQ-14, OQ-42).

Still held. Nothing. The cut-off is configuration, because the validation study of OQ-27 replaces it with a measured one, and an alert threshold that needed a release to change is a threshold nobody will tune.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-06, OQ-14, OQ-22, OQ-42, NP-15.

The sustained-enquiry indicator for a clinician, reaching a pharma user as an anonymous card and never a name. An identity is revealed only when that clinician accepts a specific contact request, and the acceptance is stored as a consent record holding the time, the wording shown and the company named (OQ-05, OQ-42).

Still held. Nothing. Shown only above both minimums: 8 distinct contributing people (OQ-14) and 3 distinct institutions with the 5 percent dominance check (OQ-40, NP-12), with counts rounded to the nearest 5 and the differencing check refusing an export or API answer whose comparison could reveal a hidden count (NP-10).

Released by OQ-05, OQ-42.

All of it. The consent screen can now say what it has to, because the answers fix what is recorded: coded labels plus a machine-written topic summary, never a clinician's typed words (OQ-38); no free-text question box exists at all (OQ-39); the ISO week and no timestamp (OQ-43); and a name reaching a pharma user only through the clinician's own acceptance of a contact request (OQ-05, OQ-42).

Still held. Nothing. A consent screen is only as honest as the list behind it, which is why this requirement could not be built while any of those four answers was missing.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-38, OQ-39, OQ-42, OQ-43.

All of it, confirmed by OQ-42 and OQ-46: a clinician is anonymous until they accept a specific contact request, the acceptance is stored with its time, wording and the company named, and tumour-board membership appears only inside the profile that acceptance opens (NP-02).

Still held. Nothing.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-42, OQ-46, NP-02.

All of it, and the answer makes the architecture explicit rather than only the rule. The separation stays enforced by construction: separate stores, separate services, a startup check that refuses a clinical or research database URL or role, and a per- request refusal of a clinical service account. What OQ-05 settles is the individual- level question that used to hold half of this: nothing individual crosses. A pharma user meets an anonymous card, the link between card and person stays inside the signal layer, and no service outside it may read that link. An identity is revealed only by the expert's own acceptance of a contact request (OQ-42), which is a consent record rather than a data flow.

Still held. Nothing. OQ-47 adds the legal shape the architecture has to match: EFEVRE is a processor for each hospital's clinical use and a controller only for the signal layer, so the two stores stay separate with separate access control, per hospital contracts and per clinician consent.

Released by OQ-05, OQ-42, OQ-47.