m625 is not a clinical decision tool · not a publisher · not an expert authority · not a simulator. It is a cross-domain Roll-formalized evidence atlas with public audit + attack surface.
Why a neurodegen-research methodologist would come
A researcher in neurodegenerative methodology (Alzheimer's spectrum · Parkinson's · ALS · mixed dementia · prion) faces a unique challenge: long cross-period horizons (5y vs 15y vs lifetime) and the high stakes of any individual-prediction language. Pain points:
cross-period closure claims in neurodegen are everywhere · most lack explicit K4.1 declaration;
the (b_X, b_Φ, b_Δ_B) 3-bit decomposition is exactly the right granularity for distinguishing biomarker-progression from clinical-progression from intervention-effect claims;
attack-surface for neurodegen research is rarely public (negative results, individual-prediction overruns).
m625 does not produce new neurodegen findings. **m625 invites neurodegen-research methodologists to (a) re-audit m620's `02_exec_004_NEURODEGEN` exec dir, and (b) apply the cross-period K4.1 declaration discipline to their own work**.
This is not clinical-research advice. This is not an evaluation of any specific paper or sponsor.
The Roll-formalized object: cross-period K4.1 discipline applied to neurodegen
For any neurodegen claim spanning ≥ 1 year, m610 F5 requires explicit K4.1 declaration:
Claim type
Likely K4.1
Reading
Biomarker progression (amyloid PET / CSF tau / DAT-scan)
(1, 0, 0)
X-substrate altered · Φ dynamics not yet shown altered · no intervention boundary altered
Clinical progression (CDR-SB / UPDRS)
(0, 1, 0)
X-substrate not the focus · Φ clinical-dynamics altered · no intervention
(1, 1, 1) candidate · OR (0, 0, 1) if only intervention-boundary alteration
all four cells potentially populated
Cross-period closure (year-5 trajectory tied to year-1 biomarker)
requires explicit K4.1 per F5 · no implicit assumption permitted
Each cell is a separate cooked Roll object. Folding cells without declaration = m610 F5 hard-veto fire.
How a neurodegen-research methodologist should approach
Pick a neurodegen claim in the literature. Read the methods section · ask: what K4.1 bit pattern does this claim implicitly assume? If the paper does not declare it, the framework says: below Tier-1.
Re-audit m620 02_exec_004_NEURODEGEN. Path on L1 disk: /data/projects/m620_roll_methodology_bridge/02_exec_004_NEURODEGEN/ (m620 sovereign · read-only from m625). Run m620's own audit primitives if available, then compare to your reading.
File the audit-replication finding. Use evidence.x1000.ai/challenge_intake.html (or PR) under the "m610 hard-veto · F5 cross-period" attack family.
Use the K4.1 discipline in your own paper. Whether reviewed by m625's audit or not, declaring K4.1 = (b_X, b_Φ, b_Δ_B) for any cross-period claim is a public commitment that survives the publication itself.
Cross-domain transferability declaration (W6.3)
The K4.1 cross-period declaration discipline is domain-agnostic — applies equally to neurodegen, cancer, CKD, autism, longevity. transferability_pct: full at the methodological level; substantive m620 verification per-domain is the sufficient condition for any specific cross-domain methodological claim.
What this demo will not say (anti-drift)
❌ It does not promise reversal of neurodegen, restoration of cognition, or rejuvenation.
❌ It does not predict any individual patient's trajectory (NCNU P_3).
❌ It does not name or rank specific labs, principal investigators, or sponsors.
❌ It does not affirm or vouch for any institutional review board (m517 W7-N inheritance).
❌ It does not run cure / reverse / breakthrough lexicon.
Falsifying prediction
The "K4.1 declaration discipline is necessary for neurodegen cross-period claims" framing is falsified by:
a published neurodegen Tier-1 cross-period claim that demonstrably lacks K4.1 declaration and yet passes m610 SELF_AUDIT_BENCHMARK_v0.1 + m620 verify;
an m620 02_exec_004_NEURODEGEN verdict showing the K4.1 declarations m625 proposes are incompatible with m620's audit primitives.
m590 (claim_pack · for graph-anchoring the K4.1-discipline pattern) · m620 (verify_req for live audit on neurodegen exec).
Honest verdict (W6.5)
已做: researcher × neurodegen K4.1 declaration discipline · 4-row claim-type table · re-audit invitation · 3 AS refs · falsifying prediction with two paths.
待办: per-disease worked example (Alzheimer's vs Parkinson's vs ALS) — open work · v1.0+.
漏洞: the K4.1 discipline is asserted as methodologically necessary; the practical uptake is open and depends on community willingness. m620 02_exec_004_NEURODEGEN audit scores remain training_data_recall · TODO_unverified until m620 publishes v0.6 verdict.
反驳预案:
- *"K4.1 is too restrictive."* — Yes; that is by design. Strict declaration is the price of cross-period audit-grade claims.
- *"What about claims that don't fit any K4.1 cell?"* — They are not yet Roll-formalized. Either fit them into the framework or hold the claim as `Tier-2 · open`.