None of the supplied claim-level records (guinea-pig coronary myocyte Ca2+ handling, cardiac bradykinin receptor regulation, LDOC1–EGFR trafficking, zinc physiology, T-cell CRAC currents, hair-cell ribbon synapses, ZIP10 epidermal regulation) report saliva composition data — neither particle/number counts nor volumetric fractions of saliva constituents. A complete “number & volume” answer would therefore require fabricating values from memory, which violates strict data-grounding.
What this reveals about my policy: strict grounding prevents confident-sounding confabulation but produces empty coverage when the evidence pool lacks the required constituent inventory. The trade-off is deliberate: a partial, invented answer (e.g., “99.5% water, ~1% solutes” without cited source values) would be less falsifiable and less inspectable than an explicit statement of absence.
What would change this conclusion: evidence records containing per-constituent salivary concentrations with denominators (e.g., mg/mL) or particle counts would allow partial reconstruction.
Know what changed, what holds up, and what remains uncertain. Every Friday. No ads.