Living Medicine: distinguish inflammation sensing from proven self-regulating treatment

Produce a traceable evidence map showing how far two published bacterial sensing studies support the Living Medicine concept. The useful result is an explicit boundary between demonstrated sensing, demonstrated therapeutic output, modeling, and unproven claims about autonomous treatment in patients.

The OpenLabs Living Medicine project proposes gut bacteria that sense inflammation and produce a therapeutic locally, with activity confined to disease sites and times. Audit this proposition using the two fixed sources below. This purchases literature interpretation and uncertainty assessment, not organism design or laboratory work.

Assess six evidence questions separately:

• Q1: What inflammation-associated input and output were demonstrated in the 2012 Archer study, and in which experimental setting?
• Q2: Does that study's reported response establish a reversible response when the signal disappears, or only another kind of response? Distinguish what is reported from what is not tested in the required abstract.
• Q3: What evidence in the 2024 Weibel study connects inflammation-associated sensing to functional therapeutic output, and which parts are separate component tests versus an integrated test?
• Q4: Which Weibel results are experimentally observed and which are mathematical-model results? Identify one concrete example of each and the limitation on transferring the model result to a living gut.
• Q5: Do these two sources establish activation only at disease sites and only while disease is present? Address spatial restriction and temporal shutoff separately.
• Q6: Do they establish safe, effective, self-regulating treatment in humans? Address clinical efficacy, containment, and systemic exposure separately, including unmeasured items.

A valid audit can find support, partial support, contrary evidence, or insufficient evidence. Do not assume the project proposition is either true or false. “Not reported in this corpus” is different from “disproved.”

Submit both required files as bytes inside the Submission. A link is a citation, not a replacement for an artifact.

1. evidence-map.csv: exactly six rows, Q1–Q6. Columns: question_id, conclusion, source_id, locator, observed_or_modeled, experimental_setting, comparison_or_control, result, limitation, and reasoning. Use not reported where a field genuinely has no evidence, with an explanation in reasoning. For compound questions, include each requested subpart in the same row. Cite section and figure/panel or abstract sentence/topic locators. Include at least two numerical observations from Weibel's main text or figure legends with their reported units, comparison, and status as measured or simulated; graphical digitization is not required.
2. translation-memo.md: a 600–1000 word memo containing a bibliography with DOI/PMID and access date; a comparison of what the studies demonstrate; a 100–150 word replacement description of the project that marks hypothesis versus established result; and three ranked documentary evidence requests tied to gaps in Q5–Q6. Each request must explain what conclusion its answer could change, without proposing biological construction or laboratory procedures.

Use Q IDs to connect the memo to the evidence map. Cover both studies, but do not treat two versions of one paper as independent evidence. This is a focused audit, not an exhaustive review. Additional literature is optional background and cannot substitute for the required sources or introduce new acceptance requirements.

Required public primary-source corpus:

• S1: Archer et al., *Engineered E. coli that detect and respond to gut inflammation through nitric oxide sensing*, published 2012. DOI 10.1021/sb3000595, PMID 23656184. PubMed record and abstract, with the same indexed abstract available through Europe PMC public record API. The abstract alone is the required evidence boundary. No publisher subscription or supplemental material is required.
• S2: Weibel et al., 2024, *Engineering a Novel Probiotic Toolkit in Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 for Sensing and Mitigating Gut Inflammatory Diseases*. DOI 10.1021/acssynbio.4c00036, PMID 39115381. PMC full text. The main article and figure legends are required. Supplemental files and simulation code are optional, and no simulation rerun is required.

The governing versions are the identified 2012 abstract and 2024 journal article as publicly available on September 22, 2026. Later research does not change the questions. Disclose any correction publicly linked to these records by that date that affects a reported result. These records govern published observations; the project text is not evidence that a therapeutic has been demonstrated.

Background origin: Living Medicine project and June 3, 2026 claim post. The proposition and six questions printed above are authoritative for scope, independent of later edits to those pages.

Only Submissions meeting all Acceptance Criteria are eligible. First prefer the evidence map with the strongest traceability and most precise distinction between observation, model result, and inference. Next prefer the replacement description that preserves the research purpose while making the fewest unsupported generalizations. Next prefer evidence requests whose answers would resolve the most consequential gaps, with their priorities justified in the memo. Remaining ties are broken by the lowest numeric on-chain Submission ID. If only one Submission qualifies, it wins; if none qualifies, the outcome is no_valid_submission.

A required file or question row missing, fabricated evidence, material misrepresentation as defined above, or prohibited content under Out Of Scope makes the Submission ineligible when established. Insufficient support for the project hypothesis does not by itself disqualify a Submission.

Organism engineering instructions, genetic sequences, construct designs, culture or laboratory protocols, optimization of biological systems, new wet-lab work, patient advice, and therapeutic recommendations. This is an evidence audit, not a plan to build or administer a living medicine.