CASE-01-NAKAMURA - F31 diagnostician report

RECONSTRUCTED - derived from a reconstructed case; not real reviewer language.

Verdict

Primary cause: mode-06-record-not-argued

the candidate's record is listed rather than argued as preparation and potential for the stated trajectory.

Case metadata

Case	CASE-01-NAKAMURA
Impact score	42
Percentile	34
Payline	20
Outcome	unfunded, outside payline
Items / warnings	20 / 0

Matched failure modes

F1 is the moved cell: 5/5/6 against F2 at 3/3/4. F1 lags F2 by two points at every reviewer. F3 appropriate across the panel, so commitment is not where this application lost.

mode-06-record-not-argued matched by 3 quote(s)
mode-05-generic-training-plan matched by 1 quote(s)
mode-08-infeasible-timeline matched by 1 quote(s)

Evidence chain

mode-06-record-not-arguedPrimary cause supported · grid: F1 · 3 quote(s)

x1 lists rotations, papers, and the exam, then states the goal. It shows the record enumerated and the trajectory asserted rather than argued, which is what the reviewers said was missing.

The applicant's productivity is solid, but the potential for an independent research career is not well established by the application as written.
reviewer 1, F1, weakness q1

Coursework, seminar attendance, and conference travel are enumerated; the record is not placed in context of the stated career goal.
reviewer 2, F1, weakness q3

Publications and grades are present. What is missing is the argument connecting them to readiness for independence.
reviewer 3, F1, weakness q4

I have completed two rotations, coauthored three papers, and passed my qualifying exam in year two. My goal is an independent research career in mucosal immunology.
application, Candidate's Preparedness and Potential x1

mode-05-generic-training-plan supported · grid: F1 · 1 quote(s)

x2 is a course and activity list with no gap analysis.

The training plan reads as a list of activities rather than a response to a stated gap in this candidate's preparation.
reviewer 2, F1, weakness q2

Training activities: IMM 210 Advanced Immunology (fall Y3); weekly lab meeting; departmental seminar series; one national conference per year; responsible conduct of research module.
application, Training Plan x2

mode-08-infeasible-timeline not supported · no moved cell · 1 quote(s)

F2 is the strong factor here; the timeline remark sits on an unmoved cell and no excerpt was located.

Aim 3 is somewhat ambitious for the remaining years, though the sponsor's support mitigates this.
reviewer 2, F2, weakness q5

Range validations

Value	Type	Result	Message
42	impact_10_90	valid	42 within 10-90
34	percentile_0_100	valid	34 within 0-100
5	criterion_1_9	valid	5 within 1-9
6	criterion_1_9	valid	6 within 1-9
3	criterion_1_9	valid	3 within 1-9
4	criterion_1_9	valid	4 within 1-9
appropriate	categorical_commitment	valid	member of {appropriate, gaps_flagged}

Diagnosis, in full

RECONSTRUCTED - this diagnosis was produced from a reconstructed case; the quotes below are reconstructed reviewer language, not real reviewer language.

Diagnosis: CASE-01-NAKAMURA

Impact score 42, percentile 34, NIAID FY2026 payline 20. Unfunded, outside payline. n_items 20, n_warnings 0.

Primary cause (one)

mode-06-record-not-argued - the candidate's record is listed rather than argued as preparation and potential for the stated trajectory.

Evidence chain

Moved grid cell: F1 Candidate's Preparedness and Potential, scored 5 / 5 / 6, against F2 Research Training Plan at 3 / 3 / 4. F1 lags F2 by two points at every reviewer. F3 is appropriate across the panel.

Verbatim critique quotes (3):

Reviewer 1, F1: "The applicant's productivity is solid, but the potential for an independent research career is not well established by the application as written."
Reviewer 2, F1: "Coursework, seminar attendance, and conference travel are enumerated; the record is not placed in context of the stated career goal."
Reviewer 3, F1: "Publications and grades are present. What is missing is the argument connecting them to readiness for independence."

Located application excerpt (x1), Candidate's Preparedness and Potential: "I have completed two rotations, coauthored three papers, and passed my qualifying exam in year two. My goal is an independent research career in mucosal immunology."

The excerpt enumerates the record and asserts the goal. The connective argument the three reviewers each looked for is not in the document.

Why not the other qualifying candidate

mode-05-generic-training-plan is present and supported by excerpt x2, but carries one quote against mode-06's three, and by ranking-opinion.md rule 2 the generic plan is downstream of the same omission. mode-06 is primary. mode-08-infeasible-timeline did not qualify: one quote, no moved cell, no located excerpt.

Threshold applied: >= 2 verbatim quotes AND >= 1 moved grid cell traced to >= 1 located excerpt. mode-06 met it with 3 quotes, F1, and x1.

One cause. Stop.