Nine Names
Language English
Palette Deep Water

Full reviewer path

Source maps, metrics, methods, and status labels.

This page holds the deeper audit modules. Contact stays at the bottom.

Follow the audit order Send only the frame

How to read this page

Use the shortest path that answers your question.

Start with the agenda, then jump. Nothing here requires login, upload, or a special notebook.

  1. 01 Claim received

    Identify the claim, decision context, and what would make it useful or unsafe.

  2. 02 Source mapped

    Track datasets, tissue, platform, access, metadata, and missing artifacts.

  3. 03 Defaults audited

    Treat QC filters, normalization anchors, and matrix construction as testable choices.

  4. 04 Donor/cohort checks

    Separate cell-level signals from donor-level and cross-cohort support.

  5. 05 Failure modes challenged

    Ask whether the signal is disease, age, assay, stage, selection, or artifact.

  6. 06 Safe handoff or hold

    Publish only public-safe summaries; controlled material waits for qualified review.

Recent examples

Public-safe ledger.

Short entries only. Dense source tables wait for qualified review.

Corrected Public safety

Public boundary check

Overstrong claims get held, narrowed, or routed to qualified review before publication.

Source map Public language points to sources and status labels.

Claims without source-checked backing stay request-only or held.

Clinical boundary No treatment advice, prescribing language, or public pressure.

Medical decisions stay with physicians, PIs, and qualified reviewers.

Evidence snapshot

Evidence snapshot from current audit

Axes tested
80
Initial cell-level flags
23
Headline flags surviving donor gate
1/23
Screened findings
2,255
Tiered findings
596
Replicated-status findings
287

What we actually did

What reviewers can inspect.

A claim moves only after sources, defaults, donor/cohort support, and failure modes are checked. The figures show the public-safe shape of that inspection.

Scatter plot showing cell-level signal against donor-level signal, with only one of twenty-three initial flags surviving donor-level correction.
Donor-level checkThe public figure shows the donor-level check, not a treatment claim.
Horizontal bar chart showing screened findings divided into not promoted, Tier R, Tier S, and Tier H evidence-status buckets.
Evidence statusScreened findings are sorted before public language is written.

Audit method

Checks before claims.

Each row names the check, the failure mode, and the output we expect before public language gets sharper.

Donor-level check

Failure mode
Cell-level p-values can overstate donor-level evidence.
Output
donor p / donor count

Cohort tiering

Failure mode
Same-donor or same-assay support can look like replication.
Output
replication tier

Normalization audit

Failure mode
Housekeeping anchors and baselines can move with disease.
Output
stress flag

QC sensitivity

Failure mode
Filters can remove the stressed cells that matter.
Output
sensitivity note

Source map

Failure mode
Unavailable or missing artifacts raise evidence risk.
Output
shown / request / held

Clinical boundary

Failure mode
Therapeutic language can turn into advice.
Output
rewrite / hold

Full source tables are request-only; the public page shows the audit shape.

Audit outcomes

Labels come after the work.

Survives

The narrow claim survived source, method, and donor/cohort checks.

Caveat

The signal is useful, but limited by cohort, assay, metadata, or review access.

Hold

The material stays off the public page until source checks and safety checks pass.

Rewrite

The claim was too broad, too clinical, or too strong for the evidence.

Boundaries

What we do not do.

Public

Allowed
summary figures
Blocked
source tables, patient files

Qualified review

Allowed
source notes, reviewer packet
Blocked
anonymous download

Offline

Allowed
unreviewed work, sensitive records
Blocked
web publication

Medical decisions

Allowed
physician/PI review
Blocked
Nine Names advice

Clinical decisions stay with physicians and PIs. No prescriptions, recruitment, or treatment instructions.

Contact

Start with one source.

Send role, claim, source link, and decision context. No patient files or treatment requests.

  1. Send only the frame

    Your role, the claim, source link, and what decision this affects.

  2. Keep sensitive files out

    No patient files, credentials, prescriptions, emergencies, or private datasets.

  3. We route before review

    We check scope first, then decide whether a public answer, reviewer handoff, or hold is appropriate.

After you send it
  • We check scope and safety first.
  • We route to public answer, reviewer handoff, or hold.
  • You decide whether anything more is shared.
  • If it is not a fit, we can say so without asking for files.
A first note can be this small:

If unsure, send only: Can you route this? [link]

  • My role is...
  • The claim I want reviewed is...
  • The source link or paper is...
  • The decision this affects is...

No patient files or private data in the first email.

Open short email Opens a one-line email. Add details only if easy.
If the email app does not open

Use the address and subject below, then paste the same small frame above.

Send to
leng.jixiang@ninenames.com
Subject
Nine Names review request

If it is not a fit, we can say so without asking for files.

Copyable draft