# Review receipt — Case 003

**Decision:** pass

A separate Codex review agent used a fresh clone, did not author the candidate, and checked exact source, calculation, lineage, receipt, repository, and deterministic-build closure. The review did not decide that the bounded scientific claim is universally true.

- Technical reviewer ID: `codex-independent-em0034-reviewer`
- Reviewed author head: `1c5a8318b2bb770c38a07a96f731531ba1c53a32`
- Dossier: `em:dossier:sha256:babe89ba3bda594a8d9f2db86a5a2987f284437a069b940d19b6928856d936d1`
- Receipt SHA-256: `f35f8c093778ad1cdeafc57746575f1a82d12fe6e6fbf0d1d4a546e3c5296e1e`
- Completed: `2026-08-28T15:59:23Z`

## Checked scope

- Exact accepted packet, dossier, and review-receipt bytes
- Source, edition, span, calculation, and license closure
- Count grammar, unresolved items, and typed dependence edges
- Policy divergence, adversarial validation, and deterministic build

## Limitations

- This review verifies the bounded historical candidate and does not establish current model behavior, general legal competence, practicing-lawyer quality, or a current product ranking.
- The launch comparison distribution, original top-ten-percent chart, national UBE distribution, and proprietary inputs remain unresolved and receive no invented value or evidentiary credit.
- The Martinez re-analysis remains model- and assumption-dependent, including its retained 45/48 internal discrepancy and its separate comparison populations.
- This receipt does not admit, feature, publish, deploy, or describe Case 003 as live.

This review checked the bounded evidence packet and its derivation. It did not decide whether every empirical proposition is universally or currently true.