Evaluation workpackage
----------------------
We can do quality assessment for the two reference protocols,
consisting of: Already present: 
1. anomalies of Pasadena paper (done via formalisation to Asbru)
2. errors uncovered by formal proofs (the 3 properties selected on May 7)
3. critiquing of protocols by manual inspection (AIME paper)
4. critiquing of protocols by interpreter 

possibly add:
5. violation of indicators (uncovered by informal analysis of KIV and/or Asbru)
  (this is already medically plausible)

possibly add
6. inject medically plausible errors and try to uncover them
 
Invitation of panel (to judge medical relevance of our properties & to
judge if errors could have been uncovered without formal methods)