Which question deserves the next human minute?
Question generation is cheap. Expert attention is scarce. This layer allocates review effort without pretending that a triage score equals scientific importance.
How unresolved?
Can we audit it quickly?
Will resolving it improve future observation?
How dangerous is premature interpretation?
First queue
| ID | Candidate | Score | Attention band | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UQG-006 | Why is the Influenza / respiratory viruses × Whole-genome sequencing relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 86.0 | A — 10–60 min audit now | Audit detector/classification rule first |
| UQG-008 | Why is the Influenza / respiratory viruses × Bioinformatics / modelling relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 86.0 | A — 10–60 min audit now | Audit detector/classification rule first |
| UQG-009 | The Streptococcus pneumoniae × PCR / molecular diagnostics relationship was recurrent but has not appeared recently in the corpus. Is the capability obsolete, absorbed into newer methods, dormant, or simply relabelled? | 86.0 | A — 10–60 min audit now | Audit detector/classification rule first |
| UQG-005 | Why is the Bordetella pertussis × Clinical trial / therapy relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 72.0 | B — short evidence review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
| UQG-001 | Why is the Cryptococcus × Whole-genome sequencing relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 62.0 | C — queue / batch review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
| UQG-002 | Why is the Arboviruses × Clinical trial / therapy relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 62.0 | C — queue / batch review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
| UQG-003 | Why is the Aspergillus × Whole-genome sequencing relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 62.0 | C — queue / batch review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
| UQG-004 | Why is the Staphylococcus aureus / MRSA × Serology / immunology relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 62.0 | C — queue / batch review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
| UQG-007 | Why is the Streptococcus pneumoniae × Bioinformatics / modelling relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship? | 62.0 | C — queue / batch review | Search evidence/metadata before scientific interpretation |
First action candidate
Why is the Influenza / respiratory viruses × Whole-genome sequencing relationship sparse in the publication corpus, and is this a true capability gap, a terminology/classification gap, or simply an unrepresented relationship?
Audit detector/classification rule first. The reason it rises is not because it is “more important science,” but because existing evidence makes a representation/detector audit both tractable and potentially high-leverage.
Attention → Action ladder
10 minutes: inspect labels/rules/examples → 1 hour: evidence audit + rerun detector → 1 day: domain review + corrected experimental branch → research project: only after U5 qualification and explicit scientific/clinical prioritisation.
High-priority review does not mean high-priority research
The first three A-band questions were valuable to audit, but global evidence showed they should not proceed in their original form as new CIDM research questions.