Concept Integrity, Potential Consequence, and Validation Readiness: A Candidate Metric Framework and Full-Text Benchmark Study

This exploratory full-text comparative scoring study introduces a candidate three-axis framework for concept integrity, potential consequence if confirmed, and validation readiness. Twenty-six biomedical papers with verified complete full text—nine Nobel-linked, eight Mito Map, six lower-ranked-journal, and three high-quality-journal papers—were independently reviewed by Gemini, Codex, and Claude using masked packets. A weighted geometric mean yields Balanced Concept Potential; 20,000 seeded offline Monte Carlo draws per scenario vary ratings, weights, exponents, and disputed caps. Mean scores were 69.0 for Nobel-linked papers, 68.9 for high-quality journals, 64.4 for Mito Map, and 56.3 for lower-ranked journals. The cohorts are small, purposive, heterogeneous, and unmatched, so the results do not validate the rubric, establish scientific truth, show Nobel equivalence, or prove temporal improvement. Human calibration and prospective validation are required. AI reviewers produced structured measurements; Andrew Friedl reviewed and approved the final manuscript and remains responsible.