Deep dives on concepts and open problems, perspective and analysis, and worked examples — written to stand on their own and be readable months later.
Peer review spends its scarcest resource — expert attention — on the one class of error that needs none of it: checking that citations resolve and statistics match. Those checks should feel like a spell-checker, absent rather than adjudicated — which means changing the artifact so claims carry their own verifiable derivations.
A response to Corpas, Guio & Fatumo on agentic genomics: their tiered validation framework calibrates how hard to look for silent failures, but several of the failure modes it catalogs are structural — and typed contracts can make those impossible to express rather than merely improbable.
Articles are also part of the site's combined RSS feed.