BIP-XXXX — [Title]

Field	Value
BIP	XXXX
Title	[Short descriptive title]
Type	T (Taxonomy) | P (Protocol) | G (Governance) | I (Informational)
Author(s)	[Full Name — Institution or Independent]
Contact	[email@example.com]
Conflict of Interest	[None | Describe any financial interest]
Status	DRAFT
Created	YYYY-MM-DD
BSP Version	1.0
Comment Period	30 days (BIP-T) | 90 days (BIP-P) | 120 days (BIP-G)

---

Abstract

Maximum 200 words describing what this BIP proposes.

---

Motivation

Why is this change needed now? What problem does it solve?

---

Specification

Precise technical description of the proposed change.

Current State

What exists today, if applicable.

Proposed Change

Exactly what would change — use tables, schemas, and examples.

For BIP-T (Taxonomy): Biomarker Specification

proposed_code: BSP-XX-NNN
name:          "Biomarker Scientific Name"
display_name:  "Human-readable Name"
category:      BSP-XX
level:         CORE | STANDARD | EXTENDED | DEVICE

unit:          "Standard unit (e.g. nmol/L)"
method:        "Measurement method (e.g. ELISA, PCR, LC-MS)"

ref_range:
  optimal:    "Lower-Upper or >X or <X"
  functional: "Lower-Upper"
  deficiency: "<X"
  toxicity:   ">X | null"
  unit:       "Same as above"
  population: "adult-general | specify if narrower"

cost_tier:    LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | RESEARCH_ONLY

evidence:
  - citation:    "Author et al. (Year). Title. Journal, Vol(Issue), pages."
    doi:         "10.xxxx/xxxxxx"
    year:        YYYY
    study_type:  RCT | Meta-analysis | Cohort | Case-control | Expert-consensus
    n_participants: N
    finding:     "How this study supports inclusion of this biomarker"
    quality:     HIGH | MODERATE | LOW

For BIP-P (Protocol): Schema Change

// Before
interface ExistingType {
  field_name: string
}

// After
interface UpdatedType {
  field_name:     string
  new_field:      string    // Description of new field and its purpose
}

Examples

// Working example of the proposed format or behavior
{
  "example": "value"
}

---

Rationale

Why this specific approach? What alternatives were considered and rejected?

Alternative	Reason Rejected
Alternative A	...
Alternative B	...

---

Backward Compatibility

• [ ] This change is fully backward compatible
• [ ] This change requires a migration (describe migration path below)
• [ ] This change breaks backward compatibility (provide strong justification)

Migration Path (if applicable)

---

Evidence Summary

Required for BIP-T and BIP-P. At least 2 peer-reviewed references required.

Reference	Study Type	N	Key Finding	Quality
Author et al. (Year)	Meta-analysis	50,000	...	HIGH

---

Implementation Notes

Notes for implementors of this BIP if accepted:

• SDK changes required
• Taxonomy version bump
• Smart contract update required? (Yes / No)

---

References

• Author et al. (Year). Title. Journal.
• Additional references...

---

[Author Name] · [Date] · BIP Status: DRAFT