Bioseq evaluates a proposed biological recovery route against a defined industrial stream and returns an evidence-backed verdict on whether the route is ready for concept use, requires validation, or should be excluded.
Bioseq examines the evidence against the chemistry and conditions that decide whether it holds: reproducibility, operating envelope, competing ions, selectivity, process integration and downstream separation. Every conclusion remains traceable to its evidence.
A biological interaction demonstrated in a paper is not yet an industrial route.
The assessment grades the route across six dimensions. Five are findings. One governs what may be done with them.
What has actually been demonstrated — and how independently.
Whether the route operates inside the conditions of the proposed stream.
Whether target recovery survives competition from the rest of the chemistry.
What the biological step adds to the existing process.
What the evidence legitimately permits the route to be used for.
What has to be tested before the status can improve.
Where the evidence cannot support a conclusion, the assessment returns not assessed — data gap. That is a result, not an omission.
Bioseq separates evidence from enthusiasm. The governing verdict is the Design Use Status: what the evidence legitimately permits the route to be used for. It is derived from the evidence record and cannot be promoted by the platform, the operator or the assessor.
Use directly. State the source in the design basis.
Concept-stage use only, flagged explicitly, with the validation requirement recorded.
Carry as a candidate. Do not put it in a mass balance.
Not admissible in a design document. Recorded as a data gap and carried into the validation plan.
Cobalt and rare-earth recovery from a cold, sulfate-rich acid mine drainage stream. Screening grade, for concept-stage route selection only.
For this 12 °C freshwater stream, the acid-stable mesophilic green alga is the priority candidate — despite lower per-gram uptake than both alternatives. The highest-uptake and highest-REE strains are each outranked here by operating-envelope fit.
The priority candidate is not the organism with the strongest headline result. Ulva has the highest cobalt uptake and is a marine species asked to work in freshwater. Galdieria has the highest rare-earth uptake and functions at 40–55 °C; the stream is 12 °C. The candidate that survives the actual conditions carries analogous evidence only, so it is shortlisted for validation — not admitted to design.
The first release is designed to prove one thing: that fragmented scientific evidence can be converted into a consistent, traceable and conservative industrial verdict.
Breadth is not the test. The first release works within a bounded and comparatively well-documented class of biological recovery — algal routes against aqueous secondary and dilute streams — so that the grading logic can be tested deeply and challenged properly. If the grading does not hold here, it does not hold anywhere.
It is designed to show that Bioseq can:
Separate evidence that supports concept mass balance from evidence that permits use with caveat only, requires validation, or must be excluded.
Identify when selectivity, stream conditions, competing ions or downstream burden make a route unsuitable.
Show how each verdict was reached and which evidence governs it, in a form a scientist can challenge line by line.
Transfer evidence between organisms, strains, streams and operating conditions without overstating what the evidence permits.
Return an honest no when biological potential does not justify industrial confidence.
State the next defensible action before laboratory work or capital is committed.
The test set is selected for difficulty: weak replication, conflicting conditions, inadequate selectivity, failed evidence transfer and routes that appear promising until process integration is considered. An instrument that returns mostly positive results against a test set like this has failed.
A scientist should be able to inspect the source evidence, challenge the reasoning, identify the limiting factor and locate precisely where and why they disagree.
The first release is a test of the integrity of the instrument, not a survey of biological recovery.
Assess claims consistently across projects using the same evidential standard.
Determine whether a biological route belongs in route selection.
Determine which candidates justify validation.