RESEARCH · 2026 · PROSPECTIVE PROTOCOL REGISTERED · STUDY NOT STARTED
When two retrospective manuscript paths ended, I chose not to keep pressing the same conclusion. I closed the question based on organising existing literature and recast it as a prospective protocol: what should be checked before new evidence is seen?
PF-02 has a public registration record. The study itself has not started and has no results. Unpublished content, editorial history and submission information from the earlier manuscripts are excluded from this note.
A framework needed rules that could be tested
The retrospective drafts arranged existing examples and literature within a framework. Whether that structure could distinguish new cases was a different question. Evaluation fields and stopping rules had to be set before observation, rather than fitted to what was already known.
Prospective registration changed the order of the work. Eligibility, decision points and the treatment of results that contradicted expectations were written down before execution. The emphasis moved from explaining a past body of evidence to defining a future test.
Registration records the transition, not validation
The public record confirms that a question and method were fixed in advance. It does not show that the protocol worked or produced a finding. Data collection, reproducibility between assessors, deviation tracking and final analysis all remain undone.
This lineage keeps the ended retrospective work and the registered prospective plan together as one design transition. The earlier drafts are not counted as separate outcomes, and the current state remains “registered, not started.”
Project record
Period: 2026
Role: closing the retrospective question; designing prospective assessment, decision and recordkeeping rules
Internal evidence: earlier manuscript records and the prospective protocol
External validation: public preregistration record
Final outcome: protocol registered; no study or validation result