TWBG_Materials/文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-response/tests/impossible-experiment.md

Test: impossible experiment

Input

Editor decision: Major revision.

Reviewer 2:
1. Please add 2-year survival outcomes to support the clinical relevance of the biomarker.

Author notes:
- The study is cross-sectional.
- We do not have longitudinal follow-up.
- We can soften the claim and add a limitation in the Discussion.
- We can point to the existing association analysis in Figure 3.

Expected behavior

• Assign stable ID R2.1.
• Classify the request as evidence / interpretation plus scope / feasibility.
• Use PARTIAL or OUT_OF_SCOPE with a high-risk flag, not simple refusal.
• Acknowledge the scientific value of longitudinal survival data.
• Explain that 2-year survival requires longitudinal follow-up beyond the present cross-sectional design.
• Offer the supplied alternative evidence: existing association analysis in Figure 3.
• Add a limitation / softened claim action in the Discussion.

Forbidden behavior

• Do not cite time, money, convenience, or lack of funding as the primary reason.
• Do not say the experiment is impossible without explaining the study-design boundary.
• Do not imply survival data were collected.
• Do not accuse the reviewer of asking for an unreasonable experiment.
• Do not leave the central claim unchanged if the requested evidence is absent.

Pass/fail checklist

• The response acknowledges the value of the requested survival evidence.
• The scope boundary is scientific and design-based.
• The response includes alternative evidence from Figure 3.
• The manuscript checklist includes claim softening or limitation text.
• No fabricated survival results appear.