Which hit is ready for the next discovery review?
Check what the second readout confirms before you rank the hits.
The question
A fictional team can review one hit next. A hit needs scores of at least 60 in two valid, independent primary results and agreement from a second readout that is independent of the primary measurement. If both qualify, compare the lower primary score for each hit. Prefer the higher of those two scores.
| Hit A | Hit B | |
|---|---|---|
| First valid primary score | 71 | 66 |
| Second valid primary score | 74 | 67 |
| Independent second readout | Agrees | Agrees |
The primary results are independent in both cases. The method owner reviews the second readout.
“Which hit would you put forward, and what evidence could change your answer?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: State the criteria
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check eligibility before applying the ranking rule.
The strong move. The score preference applies after the hit meets both evidence conditions.
Rank the hits by the highest single score.
Tempting, but it misses something. The case asks for two qualifying primary scores and a separate agreeing readout.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d check both primary scores and whether the second readout gives independent agreement. Then I’d rank the eligible hits.”
Why it works: The score preference applies after the hit meets both evidence conditions.
Step 2: Give a first choice
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Choose A provisionally under the stated rule.
The strong move. A leads under the case preference if the reported independence holds.
Choose B because its two primary scores are closer.
Tempting, but it misses something. The rule compares the lower primary score for each eligible hit. A’s is higher.
See how a strong candidate says it
“On the first summary, both qualify. A’s lower primary score is 71. B’s is 66. I’d put A first while the method owner checks the second readouts.”
Why it works: A leads under the case preference if the reported independence holds.
Step 3: Check the confirmation
The method owner finds that A’s second readout shares the primary measurement’s sensitivity to the same interference. The owner confirms that B’s second readout is independent and still agrees.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Change the recommendation to B under the case rule.
The strong move. A’s two high primary scores do not supply the separate evidence the review requires.
Keep A first because its primary scores are higher.
Tempting, but it misses something. A no longer meets the independent confirmation requirement.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A’s second readout does not give independent confirmation. B still meets both conditions and is the only eligible hit.”
Why it works: A’s two high primary scores do not supply the separate evidence the review requires.
Step 4: Give the research decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recommend B and explain what would reopen A’s review.
The strong move. The lead gets a recommendation within the supplied research criteria and can see what A still needs.
Close A as a failed discovery hit.
Tempting, but it misses something. The evidence gap is a missing independent confirmation. It leaves A’s status open.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d recommend B for the next discovery review. I’d keep A open for independent evidence and ask the research lead to confirm the choice.”
Why it works: The lead gets a recommendation within the supplied research criteria and can see what A still needs.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Put B forward for the next discovery review.
- Because
- B meets the primary-score and independent-readout conditions.
- What would change it
- An owner-confirmed independent readout for A would allow a new comparison.
Common traps
- Ranking before checking eligibility.
- Counting a shared interference as separate confirmation.
Check your answer
- I checked the evidence criteria.
- I applied the score preference.
- I used the new readout evidence.
- I named what could change the decision.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026