F31 diagnostician - case report

CASE-02-OKONKWO

Refusal: evidence below threshold, no cause named.

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

No diagnosis

The evidence did not clear the stated threshold. The tool refused to name a cause rather than guess. The refusal, with the exact shortfall, is the output.

Case metadata

CaseCASE-02-OKONKWO
Impact score45
Percentile38
Payline20
Outcomeunfunded, outside payline
Items / warnings16 / 4

Matched failure modes

No factor separates: F1 4/4/5, F2 4/5/4, F3 appropriate across the panel. No moved cell.

Refusal, in full

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

No diagnosis: CASE-02-OKONKWO

Impact score 45, percentile 38, NIAID FY2026 payline 20. Unfunded, outside payline. n_items 16, n_warnings 4.

Shortfall, by the three threshold conditions

  1. >= 2 verbatim critique quotes matched to one mode: FAILED. Zero
  2. quotes matched any mode in the table. All four are recorded as unmatched: true and counted as warnings.

  3. >= 1 moved grid cell: FAILED. F1 is 4 / 4 / 5 and F2 is 4 / 5 / 4.
  4. No factor separates from the others; there is no cell that moved.

  5. >= 1 located excerpt supporting a cause: NOT REACHED. With no
  6. candidate cause, there was nothing to locate.

What was tempting, and why it was declined

This application is outside the payline, which is the failure this tool explains, so the pull toward naming something is real. The nearest candidates and why each was refused:

  1. The comparative-pool language ("did not reach consensus on the relative
  2. merit of this application compared with others in the pool") sits near mode-13-wrong-ic-fit. Nothing in the record names institute mission or fit, and the percentile is 18 points outside the payline rather than just outside it, which is the opposite of mode-13's signature.

  3. "Enthusiasm among the reviewers was moderate" describes panel affect,
  4. not a defect in the application. There is no mode for it, and inventing one would be the failure this tool diagnoses in other people's work.

  5. The application excerpt affirmatively carries a power analysis and both
  6. sexes, so mode-09-rigor-gaps is contradicted, not merely unsupported.

Conclusion

The summary statement does not contain enough located, matched evidence to name a primary cause. The correct output is this file. A cause named here would be a guess wearing an evidence chain.