Function coverage
Research & Development
The platform observes 30.0% of the 1,420 items a week in scope here, reconstructs 20.0%, and estimates that 710 happen where it cannot read them. This statement was produced by declared gap against a disconnected system and carries a band of plus or minus 31%.
The method behind this statement
Declared gap against a disconnected system · owned by Chief Scientific Officer · Function head
The research notebook is a named source system in a not-connected state. Unseen is that system’s own declared weekly volume, taken from its owner rather than from a count.
The unseen share is anchored on a named source system in a not-connected state, so the gap has a cause on the record rather than an estimate behind it.
Bench work recorded in the research notebook, which is not connected.
Who has signed for it
1 signature stands against something inside this scope. Each one names whether it came from an individual or from the office they hold.
Half of R&D activity sits in the research notebook, which is not connected to this platform. I attest to the volume figure quoted for it.
Work filed here that the platform could not see
1 item has been filed by somebody who did the work off-platform.
Gaps raised against this function
1 gap in a chain that something must have filled.
Bench work is happening in the research notebook, which is a named source system in a not-connected state.
What this statement is, and what it is not
Coverage can only ever be estimated from the outside. Observed is a count the platform can produce from records it holds. Inferred is a count it reconstructs by rule or by cohort. Unseen is an estimate of work the platform knows exists and cannot read, and every statement carries the method that produced it and a stated uncertainty. Nothing here is rounded up.
A coverage statement is disputable by design. The way to disagree with one is to inspect the method and the basis for the unseen figure, both of which are on the statement, rather than to argue about the number.