# UTFANSWF v23 Review Guidance

This is the compact reviewer protocol for the current release set: the protected **v22 paper** plus the **v23 executable bundle**.

## 1. Evidence/status ladder

Keep these categories separate:

- **Historical / superseded** — preserved for lineage; not an active claim.
- **Diagnostic / open** — useful test or partial result; not closed.
- **Internal PASS** — the shipped implementation satisfied its encoded acceptance gate.
- **Artifact reproduction** — an independent user reproduced the shipped result from the shipped artifact.
- **Independent implementation** — a separate implementation reached a compatible result without copying the same computational path.
- **Scientific validation** — external evidence, specialist review, prospective tests, or independent data support the physical claim.

An internal PASS is not automatically independent implementation or scientific validation.

## 2. What the canonical run establishes

Run:

```text
python -m harness.run_all_gates
```

The canonical physics suite contains **18 gates**. The Frog research-overlay integrity check and the Aug. 19 new-prediction reproduction are **blocking auxiliary layers**, not invented Rows 30/31. RCR closeout is likewise release/research closeout metadata, not a renumbered canonical physics gate.

A PASS establishes only that the declared implementation, inputs, thresholds, and integrity checks passed their encoded scope.

## 3. Review the actual claim

For each material claim, trace:

**claim → equation/specification → gate → source code → input/data provenance → threshold → output → external baseline**

Use `results/results.json`, `results/ledger.jsonl`, row-specific results, `research/`, `datasets/`, and the cited specification/closeout files. Do not treat a headline, terminal label, or isolated number as the whole evidentiary chain.

## 4. Preserve failures, boundaries, and supersessions

Do not flatten all negative material into framework failure, and do not hide it either. Distinguish:

- deliberately failing/adversarial controls,
- historical branches retained for provenance,
- superseded predictions,
- diagnostic results without a physical acceptance threshold,
- unresolved/open boundaries,
- blocking gate failures.

The authoritative Aug. 19 prediction ledger is under `research/new_predictions/`; current gate/open-boundary status is recorded in `README.md` and `results/results.json`.

Important examples in the current executable include: the public distributed-H0 record is preserved separately from the active hardened Row-20 background fit; Row 23's canonical branch closes the echo amplitude at zero unless independently derived noncanonical NZH dynamics are added; and Row 29 is an isoQCD nucleon result, not a full charged-proton QCD+QED prediction.

## 5. Minimum standard for a whole-framework verdict

Before issuing a global verdict:

1. Review the complete paper/relevant executable surfaces rather than sampling selected passages.
2. Evaluate UTFANSWF as a bridge/interface framework where that is the stated role; do not require every bridge to replace the established domain theory it connects.
3. Preserve the document's claim tiers and gate scopes.
4. Reproduce or inspect the relevant artifacts where an executable claim is being judged.
5. State explicitly what was not checked: pages, code, data provenance, external baselines, or assumptions.
6. Report local defects immediately, but do not extrapolate a local defect into a global verdict without demonstrating the coupling that makes it global.

## 6. Review report format

A useful issue report should include:

- exact paper section/page or source/gate/file,
- environment and exact command if execution is involved,
- observed output and expected output,
- whether the issue is execution, provenance, interpretation, mathematics, or physics,
- severity and scope (local vs structural/global),
- evidence needed to resolve the issue.

For a full review, include a coverage ledger, claim map, issue register, evidence grades, surviving claims, failed claims, unresolved claims, and explicit falsification/kill conditions where they are defined.

## 7. Authorship and AI assistance

Ronald L. Alexander supplied the central conceptual architecture, cross-boundary system logic, direction, iterative decisions, and final publication responsibility. AI systems were used as technical assistants for mathematical/physics formalization, drafting, code, checking, and iterative analysis. AI assistance does not change the evidentiary standard: executable results still require reproduction, and physical claims still require independent scientific validation.

## 8. Reviewer rule in one sentence

**Test UTFANSWF as hard as the evidence allows, but test the claim that is actually made, at the scope it is actually made, using the artifacts that actually support it.**
