AUDIT — h12-sonogenetic (Sonogenetic STRC Computational Proof)
- Tier: C · mech 2 / deliv 2 / misha_fit 2 ·
next_step: Speculative; no near-term path - lit_audit before:
deferred(2026-04-23) - lit_audit after:
partial, 1 blocker - Grounding:
GROUNDING/hypc-h12-sonogenetic.md - Proportionality: C-tier, speculative, no scripts. Short confirmatory pass.
Scope
hypotheses/h12-sonogenetic/scripts/ is empty; the hypothesis is carried by one
phase note, STRC Sonogenetics Bifurcation Analysis.md (13.1K). The audit
question is therefore not “are the scripts sourced” but “does the bifurcation
conclusion depend on any unverified external number.”
Parameter-provenance table
| # | Parameter | Value | Treatment in the analysis | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fold induction, 6×NFAT construct | 62× | point value, used as the anchor | ”Wu et al. 2023” — no PMID, DOI, journal or title | ❌ UNVERIFIABLE |
| 2 | Kd_CaN | 500 nM nominal | swept 100–2000 nM, then 500–5000 nM | — | ✅ n/a — swept |
| 3 | NFAT_threshold | 0.05 nominal | swept 0.01–0.30, then 0.05–0.40 | — | ✅ n/a — swept |
| 4 | Hill coefficient | — | swept 2–8 | — | ✅ n/a — swept |
| 5 | Saturation / dose-response table (0–70 dB → 16–198% of target) | — | model output | in-house computation | ⚙ |
| 6 | Ca²⁺ toxicity thresholds (>1000 nM at sustained >100 dB) | — | model output; note states this is a property of all hair cells | in-house | ⚙ |
| 7 | CV < 1% stability result | — | model output | in-house | ⚙ |
Finding 1 — the swept parameters are NOT blockers
Worth stating explicitly because the obvious skim gets it backwards. The note’s
line 47 flags NFAT_threshold (0.05) and Kd_CaN (500 nM) as “both too low,”
which reads like two unsourced constants. But the analysis never rests on those
point values: it sweeps Kd_CaN across 100–2000 nM and again 500–5000 nM, and
NFAT_threshold across 0.01–0.30 and again 0.05–0.40, 245 combinations in total.
A conclusion robust across a 10–50× swept range does not need a literature value
for that parameter, and demanding one would be audit theatre.
This is the correct engineering response to an unmeasured parameter, and h12 did it by construction where h09 had to reach for it retroactively (Phase 4n Monte Carlo). A C-tier speculative hypothesis is, on this narrow point, better disciplined than the S-tier one.
Finding 2 — one unverifiable external anchor
STRC Sonogenetics Bifurcation Analysis.md:87:
“Even if fold induction is 3x higher than Wu et al. 2023 (200x instead of 62x), protein stays under 200% of target.”
and line 156: ### Wu et al. 2023 — used 6xNFAT only.
ls sources/lit/ | grep -i "wu\|2023" returns three Wu papers, none of them this
one (a PVDF-TrFE piezoelectric paper belonging to h02, a MYO6 review, an ACBD7
paper). “Wu et al. 2023” carries no PMID, no DOI, no journal, no title.
That is the signature of every phantom this vault has already caught — “Masaki
2009”, “Gueta 2006”, “Ren 2011”, “Sharma 2018”, “Krey 2015”. I am not calling
it a phantom: it may be a real paper that was simply never filed. I am recording
that h12’s single external quantitative anchor is unverified, which is enough
to keep the hub off fixed.
Mitigating, and stated for fairness: the analysis is deliberately built so the conclusion survives a 3× error in this number (“even if fold induction is 3x higher… protein stays under 200% of target”). The saturation cap dominates. So the conclusion is fairly robust to the citation being wrong; the citation is still unverified, and a bare author-year in a research vault is a liability regardless of how much weight currently sits on it.
Verdict
lit_audit: partial · lit_audit_date: 2026-08-21 · 1 blocker
lit_audit: partial
lit_audit_date: 2026-08-21
lit_audit_blockers:
- "'Wu et al. 2023' (62x fold induction, 6xNFAT construct) — UNVERIFIABLE CITATION. Cited twice in STRC Sonogenetics Bifurcation Analysis.md (lines 87, 156) with no PMID, DOI, journal or title. No matching file in sources/lit/ (checked 2026-08-21: the three Wu entries are a PVDF-TrFE piezoelectric paper, a MYO6 review and an ACBD7 paper). This is h12's only external quantitative anchor and it carries the phantom-citation signature that the 2026-04 audits found in h02 and h05. Mitigating: the bifurcation conclusion is explicitly built to survive a 3x error in this value, so little currently rests on it. Next step: identify the real paper, file it to sources/lit/, or mark the 62x as an in-house assumption. NOT a modelling blocker — Kd_CaN and NFAT_threshold are SWEPT (245 combinations across 10-50x ranges), so they correctly need no literature point value."Ranking delta
C-tier HELD. No mech/deliv/misha_fit change. See RANKING-DELTA.md.