43 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# Test: impossible experiment
|
|
|
|
## Input
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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- Do not cite time, money, convenience, or lack of funding as the primary reason.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.
|