The question.
Can an agreed set of senescence, viability and functional readouts produce a more interpretable comparison than a marker considered alone?
Why this project exists.
The source map proposes a partner-delivered Cell-State Panel. This project brief makes the commercial acceptance question explicit: will the panel produce a result a research customer can understand, reproduce and use to choose the next study? It is a validation plan, not a test menu or a claim that Karam already operates a laboratory.
Proposed work packages.
Choose one use case
Specify the model, comparison and decision. Do not combine unrelated cell systems into one universal score.
Commission a complete scope
Obtain a qualified laboratory quote covering controls, repeat rules, data delivery and commercial-use rights.
Keep readouts separate
Preserve viability, marker and function results so discordance is visible instead of averaged away.
Review delivery quality
Assess reproducibility, failed runs, missing metadata and whether the final report resolves the original question.
The continue / stop decision.
Advance only when partner capacity, written rights, quality controls and an interpretable handover are established. A marker change accompanied by unexplained cell loss is a reason to investigate, not label a result rejuvenation.
Who could contribute.
Established laboratories with relevant model experience, research customers with a specific comparison and reviewers able to interpret the chosen measurements.
What is not yet established.
No Karam assay validation, physical kit inventory, partner contract or clinical utility is claimed.