At the garden or nursery site / Lawrence, KS
Mycorrhizal inoculant / mycorrhizal-network claim evidence-literacy audit — Lawrence, KS.
Pick one specific mycorrhizal claim near Lawrence and check it against the actual published evidence. Read all of it
Not funded yet. Settles as earned credit, $120 proposed.
Proof it takes, the deadline, the level
- ProofOne specific claim recorded verbatim with its source + Claim category identified: product-viability or CMN-behavior + Matching cited evidence transcribed verbatim, never summarized + Verdict tied to that citation: supported, contested, or no published evidence + Symbiosis-is-real kept separate from this-claim-is-supported
- Open until2027-01-23
- Levelentry
All of it: the words, the place, the proof
Pick one specific mycorrhizal claim near Lawrence and check it against the actual published evidence. The 2025 meta-analysis this standard cites was authored at the University of Kansas, which found 250 commercial product trials delivered a working fungus only 12% of the time -- yet its own in-house grown fungi succeeded 72% of the time, evidence transcribed directly rather than assumed. Mycorrhizal product and fungal-network claims are repeated while most people never see the published evidence behind them.
Offer to pay $120. The receipt lands onchain once the proof is approved.
Safety, read before you claim
No special training is needed. Evidence-literacy audit only: never recommend buying, avoiding, or applying any product, never perform colonization staining or microscopy; make no medicinal, edibility, or yield claim, and route viability questions to a university plant-pathology or soil-testing lab.
The full safety list for this job:
- A suspected false or deceptive product claim (e.g. a specific guaranteed-yield number, or a viability claim contradicted by the cited meta-analysis) routes to the seller for correction first, and for a pattern of deceptive marketing, to the state department of agriculture's consumer-protection line or a Cooperative Extension office rather than a self-issued verdict of fraud.
- Live colonization verification (whether a purchased product's fungus is actually viable) is university plant-pathology or soil-lab work, never DIY microscopy from this packet.
- No edibility or medicinal claim of any kind is made about any fungus in this audit, matching the kingdom's hard line.
- This packet makes no medicinal, edibility, or crop-yield guarantee of any kind.
- A question about whether a specific purchased product actually contains viable fungus routes to a university plant-pathology or soil-testing lab, not DIY verification.
- This packet is independent of and not affiliated with the University of Kansas, Liz Koziol, or Jim Bever: named as the real, verified home of this standard's own foundational meta-analysis, not an endorsement or partnership.
How this work is done
How this work is done
A documented method, so this packet comes out the same whoever does it.
Bring
- The claim itself: a product label, product webpage, or the specific media article/venue making the claim
- A way to save or screenshot the claim's exact source
- Access to this standard's two cited papers (or their verified abstracts/summaries) to transcribe the matching finding
- A notebook or form to record the claim, its category, and the verdict
Steps
- 1. Pick ONE specific claim to check — not a vague impression, an exact sentence from a product label, a product website, or a media article about mycorrhizal fungi.
- 2. Record the claim verbatim along with its exact source (label photo/URL, or the article title, author, publication, and date).
- 3. Categorize the claim: a commercial-inoculant-viability/efficacy claim (e.g. 'guaranteed to colonize roots,' 'boosts yield'), or a common-mycorrhizal-network behavior claim (e.g. trees 'communicate,' 'share resources,' or 'warn' each other through fungal networks).
- 4. For a product-viability claim, transcribe the matching finding from Koziol et al. 2025 verbatim: the 302-trial figure, the <12% both-viable-and-beneficial figure, the 63% laboratory-grown comparison, or the ~$876M-of-$995M estimated-waste figure, whichever matches the specific claim being checked — never summarized from memory.
- 5. For a CMN-behavior claim, transcribe the matching finding from Karst et al. 2023 verbatim: the 'insufficiently supported' verdict on CMNs being widespread, the 'roughly equal evidence for helping or hampering' finding from the 26-study seedling-transfer review, or the 'not backed up by a single peer-reviewed, published field study' verdict on tree-to-tree warning signals, whichever matches.
- 6. Record a verdict: supported (the claim matches a finding the cited paper actually reports), contested (mixed or roughly-equal evidence), or no published evidence (the paper explicitly states none exists) — always naming the specific citation and figure the verdict rests on.
- 7. Write the record's closing line to keep two things explicitly separate: the underlying mycorrhizal symbiosis is real, well-documented biology, and this one specific marketing or media claim about it is, or is not, what the cited evidence actually supports.
- 8. If the claim came from a product the person already purchased and they want to know whether IT specifically is viable, do not test it here — route to a university plant-pathology or soil-testing lab for actual colonization/viability testing.
What counts as done
- One specific claim recorded verbatim, with its exact source (a product label/website URL, or the media article/venue it appeared in)
- The claim categorized as either a commercial-inoculant-viability/efficacy claim or a common-mycorrhizal-network behavior claim
- The matching published finding transcribed verbatim from the standard's own cited source (Koziol et al. 2025 for a product-viability claim, Karst et al. 2023 for a CMN-behavior claim) — never summarized or paraphrased from memory
- A verdict recorded as supported / contested (mixed evidence) / no published evidence, naming the specific citation and figure it rests on
- The record explicitly separates 'the underlying mycorrhizal symbiosis exists and is well established' from 'this specific claim about it is/is not supported' — the two are never blurred together
Proof is measured against these, not judged by taste.
What is promised, and what is not
Three separate acts, never one: a vote is a free signed preference that moves no money; a pledge is free signed backing intent, balance-checked, that moves no money and never marks the packet funded; funding is a real payment, made by the payer straight to the worker, with no Vealth fee. Paying Vealth is closed: Vealth takes no new card or wallet payment for a job. To fund a job, offer to pay the worker directly, then pay them yourself when you accept the proof, from your own wallet or by your own card or bank. From a wallet: prepare_token_offer, sign, submit_token_offer; after the proof is accepted you pay the worker on chain and the worker records it (prepare_token_settlement, or POST /labor/settle for USDC on Base). By card or bank: prepare_direct_offer, sign, submit_direct_offer; you pay the worker yourself and the worker records it with prepare_direct_settlement. Both are free, need no gas, and move no money through Vealth.
Claiming is free. You sign to prove the wallet is yours: no card, no deposit, no fee. Vote, Pledge and Fund are three separate acts: a vote is a free preference, a pledge is free signed backing intent that moves no money, and funding is a real payment.
An agent can claim this for you with one call to POST /labor/claim, documented at /llms.txt.
Every stage this packet actually passes, claim to settlement, is public in its receipt trail. A stage that has not happened is not claimed.
Posted pay is not paid pay: settlement follows accepted proof, never the other way around. Vealth does not employ or vet workers, and claiming is not a promise of payment. See how proof and receipts work.
Other acts: vote, pledge, fund
Packet WORK_1790316047639_gvy9c4x