Skepsis Insights

Every requirement in bioskepsis-insights-user-requirements-v1.1.md, with the verdict the document’s own rules force. No requirement now carries the verdict BLOCKED. Each row carries both halves of its account, what is buildable and what is still held, and names the decisions that released it. A requirement answered the other way is DROPPED, and that is the one verdict nobody can go and change.

ID	Verdict	Basis	What that means
`FR-DISC-07`	PARTIAL	research	All of it as stated, on a non-numeric derivation. Basis is research ([R53], [R05]) and no open_questions entry is listed, so it is not gated by 0.3 or 0.4. Buildable: an influence-scope facet with the four stated values (local, regional, national, global) on expert results, derived from data that... Still held. None of the requirement is OQ-blocked, but one sub-part is blocked by rule 0.5 and has no open question covering it: any tier rule that needs a count cutoff - how many countries, centres, collaborators or citations make an expert 'national' rather than 'regional', or 'global' rather than 'national'...
`FR-FIT-02`	PARTIAL	research	Fully buildable. Basis is research, which rule 0.3 does not block, and FR-FIT-02 lists no open_questions, so rule 0.4 does not bite. The requirement is a transparency mechanism: it displays whichever inputs and contributions exist rather than deciding what they are, so it needs no threshold, weight... Still held. None. One sequencing note, not a gate: the breakdown can only render the components that exist, so until OQ-11 and OQ-12 are answered it will show the mechanism-relevance and indication-relevance contributions and mark trial record and ability to enrol as not yet computed, rather than showing a...
`FR-FIT-04`	PARTIAL	research	Fully buildable. Basis is research, which rule 0.3 does not block, and FR-FIT-04 lists no open_questions. Every field the requirement asks for is named in the requirement text itself: the user, the date and the reason for each change, over two event kinds (a change to fit-score weights, and a... Still held. None. One caution rather than a gate: the requirement states no retention period, purge window or log-review frequency, so the build must not invent one (rule 0.5) - records are kept append-only with no expiry until someone states a retention rule.
`FR-RISE-03`	PARTIAL	research	The whole requirement, because it is a negative constraint rather than a calculation: any rising-expert ranking must have at least one contributing input that is not a publication metric, and a ranking whose contributing-input set is publication metrics only must be refused or suppressed.... Still held. None. The guard is buildable and testable now, independently of how 'rising' is finally defined, though it only has a ranking to act on once FR-RISE-01/FR-RISE-02 are unblocked by OQ-13. What must not be built alongside it: any input weighting, which belongs to OQ-12 (fit-score weights) and OQ-13,...
`FR-TREND-03`	PARTIAL	stated	The light view, which is what the answer leaves. Topics are marked where BioSkepsis answers found thin evidence or contested evidence, built from the two evidence flags the signal layer already carries (NP-07). That is a view over flags this product holds, and it needs nothing new from anybody. Still held. The gap finder itself, permanently rather than pending: OQ-15 puts it outside this product and not as an add-on either, so no gap-finder component, no gap-finder purchase path, and no research-gap prediction beyond the two flags. This entry stays PARTIAL rather than BUILD because the requirement as written asks for research gaps likely to become papers, and what is built is thinner than that on purpose. Released by OQ-15, NP-07. Still held by OQ-15. Nothing is defaulted in its place.
`FR-MEAS-03`	PARTIAL	research	All of it. Basis is research ([R18] survey of 1,023 MSL professionals; MAPS guidance [R20], [R21] separating activity from impact metrics), the requirement lists no open_questions entry, and it needs no invented number: both metric families are counts and records over data the product already... Still held. None under rules 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. Two conservative limits still apply: rule 0.5 forbids attaching any KPI target, benchmark or threshold to these metrics, since no target is stated in the file, so the report must present bare counts rather than a rating or a red/amber/green judgement; and the...
`NEVER-01`	PARTIAL	stated	All of it. Basis is stated (no patient data leaves the institution). No open_questions. The '18 identifier types' figure comes from the cited HIPAA de-identification standard [R79] and serves explicitly as a checklist, so it is a sourced figure rather than an invented number under rule 0.5. Still held. None.
`NEVER-02`	PARTIAL	stated	All of it. Basis is stated (no patient data leaves the institution), no open_questions, no number. The prohibition on patient clinical details reaching Insights is directly stated and is reinforced by GDPR Recital 35 [R65] and the CJEU 2024 ruling on pharmacy order data [R71]. Still held. None. One caveat to carry into the code review rather than a gate: the basis_detail says the enumerated list (age, sex, stage, treatment history, test results, sequencing files, pathology reports, case notes, board decisions) is the document author's reading, so treat that list as a non-exhaustive...
`NEVER-04`	PARTIAL	stated	All of it. Basis is stated (pharma users never see clinical activity; Insights receives only aggregated derived signals; also stated facts 5.1.6 and 5.1.9). No open_questions, no number. This is the strongest stated prohibition in the group and is the right foundation for the guards that the... Still held. None.
`NEVER-05`	PARTIAL	stated	The forward-looking half, which does not depend on OQ-34: a mandatory current-consent check before any signal_event is created, so no signal exists for a clinician who never opted in and no NEW signal is created after a withdrawal. Basis is stated (clinicians opt in explicitly and can withdraw),... Still held. The retroactive half. OQ-34 has not decided whether signals a clinician already contributed must be deleted from Skepsis Insights or only excluded from new aggregations, so the withdrawal handler must not yet act on already-stored signals or already-delivered aggregates. Build the consent gate,... Still held by OQ-34. Nothing is defaulted in its place.
`DATA-04`	PARTIAL	stated	The whole requirement. The consent mechanism, its timing (consent before any signal is created or passed) and the three disclosure headings (what is recorded, what is not recorded, what is shared with pharmaceutical customers) are all stated, and DATA-04 carries no open question. Still held. None under rules 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. One adjacency, explicitly not a 0.4 gate on DATA-04: the item-by-item wording shown on that screen is governed by XFER-03, which does carry OQ-05, OQ-38 and OQ-42, so build the screen, its versioning and the three headings now and let XFER-03 supply the final item...
`DATA-08`	PARTIAL	research	The whole requirement. Basis is research, which rule 0.3 does not block, and no open question is attached. Buildable now: a data-classification attribute on every dataset and column group where pseudonymised is classified as personal data; a guard that prevents any UI label, export header, API... Still held. None. The rule is categorical, so no re-identification-risk score, retention period or other numeric value is needed - and none may be invented (rule 0.5).
`DATA-10`	PARTIAL	research	The whole requirement. Basis is research and no open question is attached. Buildable now: an objection intake path, an objection record per expert, a recorded validity decision, a processing-stop flag that by default removes that expert from discovery, scoring, saved lists, exports, alerts and API... Still held. None. One scope guard: no objection-review deadline or response-time SLA may be coded, because no such number is stated anywhere in the file (rule 0.5) - so the stop must take effect immediately and synchronously on a valid objection rather than being queued against an invented deadline.
`SEC-03`	PARTIAL	research	All of it. A maintained answer bank for standard vendor security questionnaires: one row per question with the answer text, a pointer to the supporting evidence, an owner and a last-reviewed date, plus an export so a completed questionnaire can be returned to a pharma customer's procurement team.... Still held. None. One caution rather than a gate: the 627-questions / 21-categories / 128-questions figures come from a SIG licensee's 2025 summary and the file states they were not checked against Shared Assessments directly (0.7, 0.8), so they must not be hardcoded as schema constraints, completeness checks...
`SEC-04`	PARTIAL	research	All of it, and this is the strongest build candidate in the group. Two halves, both fully specified: (a) a server-side guard that refuses any request reaching stored signal data unless the session was authenticated with a second factor, applied at the data-access layer rather than only at the login... Still held. None of the mechanism. Under rule 0.5 no numbers may be baked in: no MFA session lifetime or re-prompt interval, no failed-attempt lockout threshold, no access-log retention period, and no fixed review cadence. Log review therefore ships as an on-demand operator action with a recorded reviewer and...

Requirements