Pathway mechanism hypotheses
Candidate peptides can now carry a typed mechanism: biological nodes, causal edges, intervention-blocked nodes, reachability goals, adverse-pathway blockade claims, safety claims, and conservation laws.
How pathway hypotheses are encoded, Swift-checked, and discharged with Lean receipts.
The discovery engine has been extended with pathway-mechanism hypotheses, graph-level Swift verification, Lean 4 audit artifacts, a reusable package plan, an external verifier CLI, perturbation evidence scoring, and a claim-boundary ledger. The result is an auditable bridge from AI-generated biological rationale to wet-lab testing.
Candidate peptides can now carry a typed mechanism: biological nodes, causal edges, intervention-blocked nodes, reachability goals, adverse-pathway blockade claims, safety claims, and conservation laws.
The local verifier checks whether a therapeutic endpoint is reachable, whether adverse endpoints are blocked under intervention, whether protected pathways remain safe, and whether declared reactions are conserved.
Each mechanism report can emit a Lean module with node types, reachability checks, theorem names, and a checksum binding the formal artifact to the candidate report. The Evidence workspace now exposes these receipts in an audit drawer.
The app now surfaces a reusable Lean package plan with package name, version, generated file list, checksum, and caveats so formal artifacts can move toward a public pathway-lean library.
A new peptiter-lean-verify executable writes Lean source, runs a configured Lean binary or dry-run path, validates checksums, captures diagnostics, and emits a JSON verification receipt for CI or regulated review.
Wet-lab, transcriptomic, CRISPR, chemical perturbation, and partner assay records can now be attached to pathway assumptions and scored for coverage, agreement, disagreement, and missing evidence.
The lab now exposes mechanismVerification and perturbationEvidence assays so pathway logic and evidence support can participate in candidate ranking before LabSpace handoff.
Mechanism, structure, heuristic, calibration, and wet-lab claims now share one ledger so the product can say what each result is allowed to support and what language is blocked.
Can this peptide plausibly move the selected pathway toward the desired endpoint?
Does the proposed intervention block a causal route into an adverse endpoint?
Are protected nodes spared, still reachable, or explicitly marked as unresolved?
Do reaction-level assumptions preserve declared molecular quantities?
Which assumptions are supported, contradicted, or still untested?
Can the mechanism artifact be reproduced and verified by Lean in CI?
LLM + graph-AI proposal anchored to curated pathway evidence
GLP1R → cAMP → insulin-secretion endpoint reachable
adverse appetite-pathway branch blocked under selected nodes
declared reaction balance checks pass for encoded assumptions
5 supported · 1 unresolved · 0 contradicted assumptions
checksum match · theorem names captured · CI-verifiable
peptiter-lean-verify \ --input DL-MECH-0421.artifact.json \ --output DL-MECH-0421.receipt.json \ --work-dir /tmp/peptiter-lean status: verified checksumMatches: true theorems: desiredReachability, adverseBlockade, protectedSafety
Add SBML, BioPAX, Reactome, and Open Targets importers so mechanism graphs are generated from curated biological knowledge instead of only hand-authored candidate hypotheses.
Connect retrieval, biomedical knowledge graphs, and structured prompting so the model proposes mechanisms with citations, then hands them to the verifier as explicit assumptions.
Move from bounded executable checks to richer proof templates, signed receipts, CI retention, and optional reviewer-facing proof bundles for high-value candidates.
Use perturbation disagreements and missing assumptions to recommend the next assay, dose-response experiment, receptor panel, or omics readout.