CACHE #3 Round 1 own-selection outcome per workflow (Herasymenko et al. 2026 Table S8)

Correction found by the independent review pass of batch use-case-coverage-hitdisc-20261022. The previous value is kept here.

Conflicting source claim: "[\"Each workflow selected its own compounds, so the workflows are not compared on a common library in this arm. The merged-library arm is the comparison on one library.\", \"No hit rate is printed for this arm. Compounds tested (column D) and Hits (column E) are printed as separate counts and this batch records both without dividing them, because a derived rate would be a computation rather than a printed value. The article does publish a per-workflow rate, but for the merged-library arm: columns R, S and T of sheet S8 are stored as the formulas 1000*N/L, 1000*O/L and R+S, that is confirmed Tier 1 or Tier 2 hits per 1000 compounds predicted active.\", \"Workflow numbers of compounds tested range from 41 to 99, so the counts rest on small and unequal denominators.\", \"The activity and novelty scores are committee judgements, not measurements, and the per-compound scoring matrix (sheet S7) was not extracted.\", \"Participants are named for only 10 of the 23 workflows in this sheet; the rest are anonymous.\", \"Twelve of the 23 workflows returned no confirmed hit, and the workbook stores 0 for their score of best hit, aggregated score, top novelty score and top score of novel hits. A 0 in those columns means there was no hit to score, not a hit scored at zero; each affected result carries that warning.\", \"The article is internally inconsistent about Figure 6. The Results section 'Trends and Strategies from the Best Performing Computational Workflows' calls panels a, b and c 'top scoring compounds, top hit rates, and top selections from the merged Round 1 library', while the Figure 6 caption calls panel b 'the aggregated score of all Round 1 hits' and panel c the normalised Tier 1 and Tier 2 counts. The body text therefore calls an aggregated score a hit rate. No value in this batch is taken from Figure 6; every value is from sheet S8.\"]". Claim record status: source_checked.

Field: attributes.limitations

Claim: metadata-correction-403344a3423789962d3a

Source artifact SHA-256: 43b920ac9f67fac3560bcf7d24a79f76b9a0d0d962088dfe4081742ec7b9b071

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Correction found by the independent review pass of batch use-case-coverage-hitdisc-20261022. The previous value is kept here.

Conflicting source claim: "[\"Each workflow selected its own compounds, so the workflows are not compared on a common library in this arm. The merged-library arm is the comparison on one library.\", \"No hit rate is printed for this arm. Compounds tested (column D) and Hits (column E) are printed as separate counts and this batch records both without dividing them, because a derived rate would be a computation rather than a printed value. The article does publish a per-workflow rate, but for the merged-library arm: columns R, S and T of sheet S8 are stored as the formulas 1000*N/L, 1000*O/L and R+S, that is confirmed Tier 1 or Tier 2 hits per 1000 compounds predicted active.\", \"Workflow numbers of compounds tested range from 41 to 99, so the counts rest on small and unequal denominators.\", \"The activity and novelty scores are committee judgements, not measurements, and the per-compound scoring matrix (sheet S7) was not extracted.\", \"Participants are named for only 10 of the 23 workflows in this sheet; the rest are anonymous.\", \"Twelve of the 23 workflows returned no confirmed hit, and the workbook stores 0 for their score of best hit, aggregated score, top novelty score and top score of novel hits. A 0 in those columns means there was no hit to score, not a hit scored at zero; each affected result carries that warning.\", \"The article is internally inconsistent about Figure 6. The Results section 'Trends and Strategies from the Best Performing Computational Workflows' calls panels a, b and c 'top scoring compounds, top hit rates, and top selections from the merged Round 1 library', while the Figure 6 caption calls panel b 'the aggregated score of all Round 1 hits' and panel c the normalised Tier 1 and Tier 2 counts. The body text therefore calls an aggregated score a hit rate. No value in this batch is taken from Figure 6; every value is from sheet S8.\"]". Claim record status: source_checked.

Field: attributes.limitations

Claim: metadata-correction-403344a3423789962d3a

Source artifact SHA-256: 5e655da5728da46c6a57882c5fef0643c057536d7897d16b9c98f6d55c12f5fe

Hash scope: artifact_sha256 is the SHA-256 of the member file ci5c02441_si_002.xlsx. The Europe PMC supplementaryFiles endpoint assembles a zip per request, so the archive's own hash is not stable; the member file's bytes are. The publisher's direct supplement URL (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jcim.5c02441/suppl_file/ci5c02441_si_002.xlsx) returned HTTP 403 on 2026-10-22.

Archive member: ci5c02441_si_002.xlsx