# MED Synthetic Persona Feedback v0.1

Date: 2026-06-17

These are synthetic first-pass reviewer notes created to stress-test the MED site. They are not real interviews.

## Review Round

### Stem-cell and iPS researcher

Feedback: The site should lead with scientific caution, not excitement. It must not imply iPS therapies are broadly available, and it should not treat regenerative medicine as a simple AI acceleration problem.

Change made: Added explicit guardrails: no clinical advice, no patient recruitment, no treatment promises, and human scientific review before any claim leaves the private room.

### Dentist-scientist

Feedback: Tooth regeneration should not be hidden under medicine. Dental regeneration has its own biology, material constraints, dental-school network, and patient-safety issues.

Change made: Added `DENT-02` as a dedicated tooth and oral-tissue regeneration bridge.

### Tokyo-trained MD

Feedback: Busy MDs can contribute only if the ask is small, safe, and governed. The project needs public/private boundaries and ethics routing.

Change made: Added the six-step workflow with invitation, verified identity, problem packet, AI triage, human signoff, and PAT route.

### Corporate research institute

Feedback: Corporate labs need pilot definitions, confidentiality, metrics, and review cadence. They cannot act on broad medical ambition alone.

Change made: Added `LAB-06` as a corporate and university pilot desk.

### Graduate student or postdoc

Feedback: Students and postdocs need credit and publication safety. If MED only speaks to CEOs, it will lose scientific contributors.

Change made: Added attribution, contribution records, and publication-path checks to `ID-04`.

### University transfer office

Feedback: The site must not imply formal university endorsement or misuse institutional names. IP routing and conflict-of-interest review are mandatory.

Change made: Added formal endorsement guardrails and `PAT-05` for invention disclosure routing.

### TempleMirror identity steward

Feedback: Verified identity must protect professionals, not expose them. Public summaries and private evidence should be separated.

Change made: Added consent-first language and public/private evidence separation.

### Medical investor observer

Feedback: MED can use ticker language, but token language should not lead the story.

Change made: Added ticker discipline: project identity now, no token sale, no investment-return language.

## Next Iteration Questions

- Which real medical-science reviewers should be invited first?
- Which dental-regeneration subtopic has the strongest near-term reviewer and data availability?
- Should MED begin with an internal invitation-only room before publishing public articles?
- What PAT invention-disclosure template should MED reuse?
- Which TempleMirror verification level is enough for first invited experts?