Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify open problem and locate primary sources
2–3 weeks
Select a specific open or contested chemistry problem from the recent primary literature — a mechanism challenged by subsequent experiments, a reaction optimisation question with competing proposed solutions, or an analytical puzzle where two papers reach different conclusions from similar data. The problem must be genuine and specific, not a textbook exercise with a known answer. No physical laboratory is required: the proof at this outcome is analytical.
Proof required
Submit a one-paragraph problem statement that names the specific chemistry question, identifies the papers where it is posed or contested, and explains why it is a live problem rather than a solved one. Include an annotated bibliography of 8–12 primary sources covering the current state of evidence.
What gets checked
- Problem is specific — names the specific compound class, reaction type, or analytical method in question, not a broad topic like 'enzyme catalysis'
- At least two sources in the bibliography present conflicting evidence or interpretations of the same problem
- Annotations describe the experimental evidence each source provides, not just their conclusions
Common mistakes
- Selecting a problem that has a known, widely accepted solution in the textbook literature — the analytical task requires engaging with genuine uncertainty
- Choosing a problem too broad to address with primary literature analysis — 'the mechanism of enzyme catalysis broadly' is not a solvable analytical problem in 4000 words
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to describe the specific disagreement between their sources — can they explain in one sentence what two papers differ on and why?
- Ask why the problem is not already solved — confirming they understand why it remains open requires understanding the limitations of the competing experimental approaches.
- Ask what experimental evidence would definitively resolve the problem — this probes whether they understand what the field considers definitive.
Develop solution approach from primary evidence
2–3 weeks
Apply chemical reasoning to develop an analytical solution to the problem you have identified. The solution approach must be grounded in evidence from the primary literature — mechanistic reasoning supported by cited experimental data, quantitative analysis where data permits, and explicit acknowledgement of where the evidence is insufficient to be definitive.
Proof required
Submit a 1500–2500 word draft analytical solution including: (1) a summary of the competing positions and their supporting evidence, (2) your reasoned resolution or partial resolution of the problem, with each reasoning step supported by cited primary evidence, and (3) an honest assessment of what evidence would be needed to make your solution definitive.
What gets checked
- Solution approach engages with specific experimental data from the sources — not just theoretical principles but 'Source A's kinetic data shows k1 is 3× faster, which is consistent with mechanism X but not mechanism Y'
- Each key reasoning step is linked to primary evidence with a citation — not unsupported logical claims
- Assessment of remaining uncertainty is honest and specific — names exactly what additional experiment or data would be needed
Common mistakes
- A solution that ignores the most difficult piece of conflicting evidence — the analytical task requires accounting for all the primary evidence, not just the evidence that supports a preferred interpretation
- A solution composed entirely of theoretical reasoning without grounding it in the experimental data from the sources — theory without evidence is conjecture
Resources
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to explain their solution in non-specialist terms and what evidence supports it — confirms genuine analytical understanding.
- Ask them to identify the single piece of evidence that most challenges their preferred interpretation and how they handle it — the honesty of this response is informative.
- Ask what experiment they would run if they had access to a laboratory — probes whether the solution is grounded in experimental chemistry thinking.
Present complete analysis with Q&A
1–2 weeks to finalise and schedule review
Finalise the analytical solution with a conclusion that accurately represents the strength of the evidence and the confidence appropriate for the claim. Present to a chemist for a Q&A that probes the chemical reasoning and challenges the interpretation of specific pieces of evidence.
Proof required
Submit your complete analytical solution (2500–4000 words: problem statement, evidence synthesis, solution approach, uncertainty assessment, and conclusion) plus a Q&A record showing specific chemical challenges from the reviewer and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their chemistry research or industrial background stated.
What gets checked
- Conclusion states a level of confidence proportionate to the evidence — a well-reasoned partial resolution is more credible than an overconfident definitive claim when the evidence is limited
- Q&A record shows at least two challenges to specific chemical reasoning steps and substantive responses
- The analysis as a whole reads as a genuine attempt to resolve a live chemistry problem, not as a summary of what each paper says
Common mistakes
- A conclusion that claims more certainty than the evidence supports — the most credible chemistry analyses are explicitly bounded in their claims
- A reviewer who only asks factual chemistry questions rather than challenging the analytical reasoning — the Q&A must challenge specific reasoning steps
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to state their conclusion and the confidence level for it in one sentence — overconfident conclusions relative to the evidence are immediately apparent.
- Ask them to identify the alternative interpretation they found hardest to rule out — confirms they genuinely engaged with competing positions.
- Verify the reviewer has chemistry research or industrial experience at graduate level or above — the Q&A requires the ability to identify flaws in chemical reasoning, which requires domain knowledge.