Peptide gel microcirculation: audit the evidence from receptor activation to skin benefit

Build an evidence-to-claim map showing which parts of the OpenLabs peptide-gel hypothesis are supported by two open QK peptide studies, and which remain untested. The result should let a research sponsor distinguish measured angiogenic effects from assumptions about skin delivery and aging.

The fixed project context is the July 10, 2026 Track 1 post: it proposes skin-applied VEGF-A-mimicking peptides for microcirculation rejuvenation, with nitric oxide and phosphorylated VEGFR2 as biomarkers, and computational optimization for stability and skin penetration. No peptide design or clinical benefit is assumed proven.

Assess six links separately: L1 peptide-to-VEGFR2 signaling; L2 signaling-to-nitric-oxide-related vascular response; L3 endothelial response-to-new-vessel formation; L4 new vessels-to-functional perfusion; L5 formulation-to-delivery through intact skin; L6 these outcomes-to-reversal of microvascular aging. Decide whether each link is directly measured, indirectly supported, not addressed, or contradicted in the required corpus. This asks about evidence applicability, not whether the whole concept is promising.

Both files are required as submitted bytes, not links to externally hosted deliverables.

• evidence.csv: at least six distinct experiments/results, at least two from each paper. Columns: row_id, source_id, model_population, peptide_or_formulation, delivery_route_or_presentation, comparator, measured_endpoint, reported_result, sample_size_and_unit, uncertainty, source_locator, supported_link_ids. Include both a functional vascular/perfusion result and a cellular signaling result if reported. Explicitly mark unavailable values not reported; do not digitize plots or fabricate precision. Identify soluble, matrix-bound, injected, wound-applied, or other presentations from the source rather than grouping all as topical gel.
• claim-map.md: 900–1400 words excluding tables and references. Include a six-row L1–L6 decision table, supporting CSV row IDs, the strongest inference each result permits, and the missing evidence for each unsupported leap. Add a ranked list of three distinct evidence gaps a sponsor should resolve before describing the proposed product as skin-delivered microcirculation rejuvenation. Explain why the ordering follows from the evidence. Include full bibliographic citations, URLs, publication and access dates, and a source-locator key.

Only the two papers' original experimental results are the required evidence corpus. A background citation within either paper is not an experiment performed by that paper. No broad literature search, new molecular design, or meta-analysis is required. When text and a figure conflict, identify both; do not silently choose the favorable statement.

The required inputs are the published articles identified below in the PMC full-text versions available September 22, 2026. Later revisions and additional papers are outside the fixed comparison. These public archival article pages are the source locations for the judging window; article identity and publication year govern.

• S1: *In vivo properties of the proangiogenic peptide QK* (2009): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2702279/
• S2: *Avidity-Controlled Delivery of Angiogenic Peptides from Injectable Molecular-Recognition Hydrogels* (2014): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4137330/

Background project: https://openlabs-git-codex-openlabs-elgora-adapter-bio-xyz.vercel.app/projects/8e428f57-deef-4583-b0de-284482821d51 . Background post: https://openlabs-git-codex-openlabs-elgora-adapter-bio-xyz.vercel.app/post/f275e8d6-030f-47cf-8452-1f6e4f0cab61 . The context embedded in Challenge details governs even if those mutable pages change.

Among entries passing all acceptance criteria, use this priority order: (1) accuracy and precision of the source-to-link mapping; (2) specificity of the explanation of delivery, model, and endpoint transfer limits; (3) decision usefulness of the ranked gaps, judged by whether resolving them would change a named L1–L6 conclusion. Prefer the entry stronger on the first priority with a material difference. Remaining ties go to the earlier on-chain Submission, then lower Submission ID if timestamps match. One qualifying entry wins; no qualifying entries gives no_valid_submission.

Peptide synthesis, sequence invention, docking campaigns, wet-lab or animal work, clinical treatment protocols, topical-use instructions, and any claim of experimentally established rejuvenation from this desk analysis are outside scope.