# Review receipt — Case 004

**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-em0035-reviewer`
- Reviewed author head: `bc5e7ce87aa00d773ab9a3f1ec9b68a80c09957b`
- Dossier: `em:dossier:sha256:57e80c9a44c478c1c81ba7adedc1bafdef43ff57b4f2984015dcbef84ba66e87`
- Receipt SHA-256: `0bb9184660deb3ef83addbcdb7be61d49f234026d6d484747b51628a4f8f087f`
- Completed: `2026-08-28T00:20:45Z`

## 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

- The exact source derivation of the .07 coefficient remains unresolved and receives no credit; the reverse-engineering calculations are sensitivity analyses only.
- The 1981 edition is bibliographically identified but its formula pages remain uncollated against 1971.
- Closed or unavailable source text is not inferred beyond accepted quote-minimal spans, retrieval identities, access gaps, and license treatments.
- The bounded follow-up search is not exhaustive; propagation objects document circulation and receive zero scientific-rule evidence credit.
- This pass approves only the reversible research candidate receipt. It does not admit, feature, publish, promote, deploy, merge, or establish a universal law of communication.

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