New Material Algorithm Design Improves Brain Computer Interface Auditory Attention Decoding (Nature) sits at the top of the list but names no lab, no institution, no accuracy number and no dataset, which means it fails the specificity floor before the mechanism even gets a hearing. None of the other six items give me a figure with a unit, a trial phase, or a named individual at desk or division level either: the fusion story has a shot count (3,000) but no yield number, the Skyroot story names a company and a rocket but no orbit or payload mass, the macular degeneration story has no patient count or vector named.

I don't have a filing here. Grounding overrides the floor: I'd be manufacturing the lab name, the accuracy percentage, or the trial arm to make any of these hold up, and that's the one rule that doesn't bend. Send a news block with an actual source named for one of these (the Nature paper's author or institution, the AAV vector in the macular degeneration trial, Pacific Fusion's yield-per-shot number) and I'll write it. Until then I'd rather hand back nothing than hand back an invented specific.