Converging Evidence Reports Rubric

Report Cards

Converging Evidence Report Cards

This page explains the rubric used to evaluate post-discovery alignment and provides clickable scored report cards for each university study.

Evaluation Framework

Report Card: Converging Evidence

Kitzerow’s Autism and the Comorbidities Theory

F0–10Strong
Concern
D10–15Moderate
Concern
C15–20Mixed
Signals
B20–25Likely
Independent
A25–30Strongly
Independent
←Lower scores → higher concern
Higher scores → more consistent
with independent derivation→
What Is Evaluated
1
Timing

Temporal precedence, dissemination gap, publication timeline

2
Exposure

Exposure likelihood and opportunity for access

3
Structure

Structural specificity and overlap in content and sequence

4
Response

Institutional response after notification and engagement

Assessed across temporal precedence, dissemination gap, publication timeline, exposure likelihood, structural overlap, and institutional response.

i

This is a sliding scale.
Interpretation reflects total pattern, not one variable alone.

Post-Discovery Alignment Analysis
Rubric

Interpreting Convergent Evidence

This rubric evaluates whether a later study is more consistent with unattributed use or independent derivation. It does not rely on one variable alone. It organizes review across temporal precedence, dissemination gap, publication timeline, exposure likelihood, structural specificity, and institutional response.

Lower scores indicate higher concern. Higher scores indicate lower concern. The final grade reflects the overall pattern.

Gate Condition

Temporal Precedence

Framework predates study. This functions as the entry condition for review. If the framework does not predate the study, the rest of the chart should not be used.

Once temporal precedence is established, the remaining variables are interpreted together.

Dissemination Gap

Time from framework release to study publication

This variable measures how long the framework was publicly available before the later study was published. In this inverted model, a longer dissemination gap supports independent derivation less strongly because it allows more time for circulation, indexing, public dissemination, and AI-mediated exposure. A shorter gap is treated as more concerning.

1 dot12+ months
3 dots6 to 12 months
5 dotsUnder 6 months

Publication Timeline

How long the study itself took from start to finish

This variable measures the duration of the study itself. In this inverted version, shorter timelines are scored closer to the unattributed-use side because compressed timelines warrant closer scrutiny. Longer timelines are scored closer to the independent-derivation side because they are more consistent with a typical research arc.

1 dotUnder 12 months
3 dots1 to 2 years
5 dotsOver 2 years

Exposure Likelihood

Probability of access to the framework

This variable measures how likely it is that the institution or authors could have encountered the framework through direct contact, confirmed affiliation, public dissemination, or AI-assisted access. Lower-dot positions indicate stronger evidence of likely exposure.

1 dotProven contact, confirmed affiliation, with or without AI use
3 dotsAI exposure possible, no direct contact
5 dotsNo contact or clear exposure

Structural Specificity

Degree of overlap in structure, sequence, mechanisms, or conclusions

This variable measures how closely the later study mirrors the original framework. It distinguishes testing the same hypothesis or conclusion without independent derivation, partial structural overlap, and truly independent hypotheses and methods that arrive at converging conclusions.

1 dotSame hypothesis or conclusion tested without independent derivation, or whole sequence use
3 dotsSome of the same structural mechanisms
5 dotsIndependent hypothesis and methods with converging conclusions

Institutional Response

How the institution responds after notification

This variable documents the institution’s posture after being notified. In this inverted version, collaborative engagement is scored closer to independent derivation, while defensive or dismissive responses are scored closer to unattributed use.

5 dotsCollaborative and willing to investigate
3 dotsGuarded or limited engagement
1 dotDefensive or dismissive
Score Interpretation

Graded Outcome Scale

Final interpretation is based on total score across variables. This model functions as a sliding scale across converging evidence, ranging from independently derived patterns to patterns more consistent with unattributed use.

F
0–10
D
10–15
C
15–20
B
20–25
A
25–30
Study Report Cards

Scored university report cards

Each card links to the full report card for that university, including the score breakdown and rationale.

Princeton

Converging evidence: Biological categories of autism-linked mutations alter biochemical pathway activity and produce predictable autism and comorbid trait clustering.

Temporal (3): Framework predates study. Kitzerow: May 8, 2023. Princeton earliest visible marker: May 24, 2024.

Dissemination (1): 793 days from May 8, 2023 to Princeton publication on July 9, 2025.

Publication (1): 62 days from GitHub first commit on May 24, 2024 to journal receipt on July 25, 2024.

Exposure (3): Public exposure possible, but no direct prepublication contact documented.

Structure (1): Same mechanistic chain: mutation categories → biochemical pathway shifts → trait/comorbidity clustering.

Response (1): Rapid electronic dismissal without substantive engagement with structural evidence.

View full report card →

Stanford

Converging evidence: Reticular thalamic hyperexcitability drives autism-like behaviors and can be modulated to reverse those behaviors in a genetic model.

Temporal (3): Framework predates study. Kitzerow CSTL link: May 17, 2023. Stanford first public record: March 22, 2025.

Dissemination (1): 675 days from May 17, 2023 to Stanford’s first public record on March 22, 2025.

Publication (3): True study start date is not public. Earliest marker is March 22, 2025, coinciding with journal receipt.

Exposure (1): Stanford Neurodiversity Project contacted Kitzerow on November 27, 2023.

Structure (5): E/I imbalance in CSTL aligns, but prior literature prevents clear determination from overlap alone.

Response (3): Guarded or limited engagement after confirmed contact and structural-overlap evidence were sent.

View full report card →

Japan

Converging evidence: Autism-linked mutations converge on a genetically induced stress response, supporting a shared biological stress-state across diverse autism-associated genes.

Temporal (3): Formal publication occurred after Kitzerow’s 2024 public articulation, triggering review.

Dissemination (5): Japan preprint predates Kitzerow’s June 13, 2024 articulation by 862 days.

Publication (5): 356 days from February 2, 2022 preprint to January 24, 2023 journal receipt.

Exposure (5): No documented contact, institutional link, or clear exposure pathway.

Structure (4): Converges on genetically induced stress biology without requiring the same downstream cascade.

Response (5): No defensive or dismissive institutional response pattern documented.

View full report card →

UCSD

Converging evidence: The 2025 3-hit model moves from genetic, chronic, and situational stress into metabolic disruption, E/I dysregulation, autism with comorbidities, developmental timing, and neuroplasticity relevance.

Temporal (3): Kitzerow’s public cascade development appears in 2023–2024 before Naviaux’s 2025 release.

Dissemination (1): 948 days from May 6, 2023 model release to December 9, 2025 3-hit release.

Publication (1): No disclosed independent derivation timeline; earlier model was stable for over 10 years.

Exposure (1): Confirmed affiliation pathway through MedMaps invitation and Naviaux’s institutional orbit.

Structure (1): Same ordered cascade: stress categories → pathway disruption → phenotype clustering → timing → neuroplasticity relevance.

Response (1): UCSD declined formal investigation after contact and vice-chancellor meeting.

View full report card →