How We Know · Independent audit
Review receipt for Case 001
This is the public, disclosure-safe view of the exact receipt that admitted the dossier—not a self-awarded badge.
Decision
Pass
Reviewer codex-independent-reviewer completed the audit on .
- Fresh clone
- Yes
- Independent retrieval
- Yes
- Authoring artifacts used
- No
- Reviewed head
37161f25cbc76380cce72f57f370275f22f96a77- Reviewed tree
4bcb7f61292eb8d358ea67d63ee9baf598651852- Receipt digest
503d16396b25b1c22d7fc10ac6fb7db2e530e6ce348d63fa8b639db5a5288f0a
What was checked
Bounded scope
- Exact candidate bytes, dossier identity, and Git binding
- Primary artifacts, public data workbooks, and exact source spans
- Lineage topology, count derivation, target baselines, and limitations
- License treatment, deterministic rebuild, and full repository check
What this does not prove
Limitations
- This is a bounded lineage case study through the declared cutoff, not a systematic review or effect-size estimate.
- The unpublished Skurnik, Yoon, and Schwarz 2007 manuscript and participant-data identity remain unavailable; that lineage is explicitly unknown and receives zero evidential credit.
- Raw automated captures for Schwarz 2016, Carnahan and Garrett 2020, and Rich and Zaragoza 2016 remained unavailable; their quote-minimal exact spans were independently read from authoritative publisher renditions.
- The Bristol Ecker-Hogan and Edinburgh Pluviano endpoints regenerate raw PDF covers; capture-specific raw digests changed while the declared pdftotext semantic digests and exact spans reproduced.
- Distinct participant-data roots do not imply independent research programs; shared authors, recruitment frames, methods, ethics series, and materials remain separately disclosed.
- Restricted works are represented by metadata, digests where available, and quote-minimal attributed excerpts; full provider artifacts are not redistributed.
Inspect the byte-bound JSON receipt in the accepted repository