Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 30, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Interval predictions from conformal prediction are usually read as "90% coverage", but on nested battery data that number promises the fleet average, not the individual cell. We measure the gap on 124 public LFP cells under a preregistered three-tier reporting protocol (fleet, batch, cell): pooled coverage looks healthy (0.875-0.906 across splits) while the worst cell is covered 0.1-2% of the time, with exact binomial tests against the nominal level. We then repair part of the gap with a hierarchically weighted conformal engine whose weights consume only side information frozen at prediction time - signature features, batch labels, cycle indices - and never touch residuals. The preregistered repair criterion passes: 10th-percentile cell coverage moves 0.750 to 0.830 (53% of the gap), the worst cell 0.642 to 0.694, with zero deferrals and a flat sensitivity spectrum. What the engine does not repair is localized rather than left open: under protocol drift the frozen weights harm monotonically on the SOH scale (the absolute scale is reported in full), a structural dead end we report instead of tuning away; and repair capacity is bounded by calibration-pool battery diversity, measured on both datasets. On a cross-chemistry external set the calibrated intervals collapse (0.286), while the within-domain skeleton replicates (pooled 0.933, worst cell 0.686). The deliverable is a reporting protocol - three tiers of promise anchored to measured regimes, worst-cell statistics, deferral share - that makes per-cell interval claims auditable before deployment.