# U4-2 minimal-causal route packet This page does not change the current public six-question batch. It records one narrow route just outside that batch, so readers can see why `U4-2` is the next strongest causal-intervention route after `U1-2`, why `D05` stays the narrowest first anchor for that row, and what the first public-safe artifact can honestly close. ## What was rechecked for this row - `D05 EEG cortical responses after HiPi: High-speed robot-controlled pinprick stimulation` still remains the narrowest immediate intervention floor for `U4-2`, because it keeps the row focused on a minimal `intervention-versus-control` claim instead of drifting into theory-ranking language. - `D08 Simultaneous human intracerebral stimulation and HD-EEG, ground-truth for source localization methods` remains the strongest direct-validation support family once the first minimal-causal rule is fixed and the row needs a cleaner known-intervention-site cross-check. - `D19 CerebellarTMSEEGData` remains a useful public-open perturbation support family for checking whether the same sign-stability rule survives a second intervention family with explicit control conditions. - The current public six-question batch still stays unchanged: `U13-2 / U13-5 / U0-2 / U0-3 / U14-4 / U14-2`. - The practical funding bridge for this row is still watch-only rather than a current public-six route: `Brain Science Foundation research grant` and `Nakatani Foundation research grant` remain the cleanest next-watch fits, and existing Todoist watch tasks already cover both lanes. ## Why `U4-2` is the next strongest causal route after `U1-2` - It is an `A` row: the main claim can stay inside `EEG-DATA` without requiring theory victory, legal argument, or identity-overreading language. - It is intervention-first: the first artifact is a minimal causal protocol plus a rebuttal boundary, not a stronger global causal-equivalence claim. - It broadens the outside-current-six route without widening the public claim surface. `U7-1` fixes synchronization discipline, `U1-2` fixes inverse-estimation uncertainty, and `U4-2` fixes the narrowest intervention-conditioned sign-agreement rule. ## Why `D05` stays the main anchor | Candidate | What it helps with | Why it is not the first anchor | |---|---|---| | `D05 EEG cortical responses after HiPi: High-speed robot-controlled pinprick stimulation` (`10.21227/8snc-7h06`, immediate) | It is the narrowest current pain-evoked intervention route in the catalog, which keeps `U4-2` focused on `intervention-versus-control difference`, `sign agreement`, and a bounded rebuttal rule. | None in this run. It is the narrowest first anchor for `U4-2`. | | `D08 Simultaneous human intracerebral stimulation and HD-EEG, ground-truth for source localization methods` (`10.21227/7may-9q56`, with public DOI handoff `10.25493/NXN2-05W`) | It is the strongest support family once the row needs a known-intervention-site cross-check and a more explicit direct-validation floor. | It pulls the row toward inverse-estimation and source-validation language more than the first minimal-causal packet needs. | | `D19 CerebellarTMSEEGData` (`10.6084/m9.figshare.13082495`, immediate) | It is useful for cross-checking the same sign-stability rule under a second perturbation family with explicit control conditions and published exclusion notes. | It is better as a perturbation-family support dataset than as the first narrow anchor for a minimal causal packet. | ## What the first artifact can honestly close now | Artifact piece | What it closes now | What still stays outside the claim | |---|---|---| | `Intervention protocol and rebuttal condition definition` | A bounded protocol that fixes the minimum causal claim to `intervention-conditioned sign agreement` rather than to a stronger causal-equivalence story. | Any statement that one intervention family already settles broader theory competition or full mechanism recovery. | | `Sign-agreement table` | An explicit pass/fail table for `intervention-versus-control difference`, `sign agreement`, and `counterfactual error` under the same split and preprocessing policy. | Any blanket claim that intervention sensitivity already generalizes across modalities, cohorts, or theoretical formalisms. | | `Downgrade-rule note` | A public-safe rule that forces the row down to exploration whenever sign reversals persist or the intervention-effect interval crosses zero. | Any interpretation that one stable sign-agreement rule proves preserved internal mechanism, preserved identity, or successful mind preservation. | ## Funding wording that still fits | Route | Submission wording that stays honest | Why it still fits this row | |---|---|---| | `Brain Science Foundation research grant` (`watch`) | `Minimal causal-intervention benchmark for reproducible EEG verification in the mind-upload route` | The row reads naturally as a conservative intervention-validation benchmark rather than as a stronger restoration claim. | | `Nakatani Foundation research grant` (`next-cycle watch`) | `Intervention-conditioned EEG sign-agreement benchmark with explicit rebuttal gates` | It fits as a BME-facing validation package, but only as a watch route because the current cycle is closed. | ## External dependency tasks that stay outside this session - Broader causal-graph identifiability and theory-ranking language still remain outside the present repository-level artifact. - Population transfer of the same sign-agreement rule still remains outside the present packet. - Any interpretation that one intervention family proves preserved mechanism, preserved identity, or full recoverability remains outside the present route. ## What changed in this run - The public batch did not change. - The main change is that `U4-2` now has a public packet that records the narrowest intervention anchor, the first artifact, and the watch-level funding bridge after `U1-2`. - This remains a route-setting update, not a solved-claim update.