Negative-result replication triage notebook

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will research groups deciding which inconclusive experiments to repeat use it to solve "failed or null experiments are rerun without a structured account of alternative explanations"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained.
4. Measure, then decide. Track information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost and with negative outcomes retained; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: Scientists approve methods and statistical interpretation; never invent results or suppress null findings. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: separate execution failures from interpretable null outcomes; list testable alternative explanations. Support the third module with operator review: compare bounded follow-up experiments. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.

After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal. Retain the explicit scope boundary: Scientists approve methods and statistical interpretation; never invent results or suppress null findings.

What the build depends on. A clear research protocol, source access, citation tracking and qualified interpretation. Interview work also needs relevant participants and consent management. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: Scientists approve methods and statistical interpretation; never invent results or suppress null findings.

Pricing to test

Test USD 750-3,000 for one tightly bounded research question and evidence pack. Participant recruitment, specialist review and licensed data are separately scoped. Repeat tracking can become a retainer. Prices are hypotheses. Package the initial sale as one bounded scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.

Message to test

Spend follow-up effort on informative tests instead of unstructured repeats. Demonstrate a concrete scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.

Where to find buyers

Research groups deciding which inconclusive experiments to repeat professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.

Lead magnet

A reviewed sample scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained and no promised savings.

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five research groups deciding which inconclusive experiments to repeat and inspect a recent example of failed or null experiments are rerun without a structured account of alternative explanations.
2. Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
3. Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
4. Week 4: measure information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.

Paid pilot

Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.

Success metrics

Information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.

Retention and expansion

Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

Niche research protocols, credible researcher relationships and a rights-cleared evidence archive with consistent interpretation methods. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for research groups deciding which inconclusive experiments to repeat. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.

Alternatives and positioning

Research consultants, internal analysts, literature databases and general search or summarization tools. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on information gained against predeclared questions per experiment cost, with negative outcomes retained. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.

Main delivery costs

Researcher time, source access, participant recruitment, transcription, evidence coding, expert review and report revisions. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, qualified domain review and bounded validation of scientist-reviewed replication decision record and experiment proposal. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.