The added rows carry per-cell quotations with exact locators (section, figure, caption, abstract) and honest verification labels — the un-retrieved Penrose 1994 book row is explicitly `unverified` with a note that the criterion is quoted as restated in a verified 1996 row, and the McKemmish 2009 and Sahu 2013 retrieval failures are stated in the rows and limitations rather than papered over (§3.8, §3.11). Every DOI in the diff RESOLVES and the resolved titles/venues match what each row claims it supports; the three FAILS are two web.archive.org URLs with an identical 'fetch failed' error (tool-side unreachability, not internal inconsistency) and an Elsevier 403 paywall — none is positive evidence of fabrication, and the underlying works are separately anchored by resolving DOIs or by corroborating restatements. Independence is handled explicitly: the proponent lineage rows and the single-laboratory Bandyopadhyay/Sahu resonance measurements carry independenceNote fields refusing to count them as corroboration (§3.10), and the review's resonance-to-coherence-time step is recorded as the review's inference rather than the measurement's statement (§3.9). The new evidence records separate sourceStatement from editorInference, declare direction (qualifies / undermines) and calibrated, non-theatrical strength, and are appended as `ai_extracted` with runId/model/date and `humanReviewed: false` (§3.5, §3.13, §3.14, §4). AGENTS.md is untouched and nothing weakens a check. Two blemishes are ordinary imperfection, not violations: history.yaml says 'nineteen' rows where the table contains twenty, and the finding that 'all twelve frozen candidates ... enter the table' sits awkwardly beside the admission that Sahu 2013 was never retrieved and appears only inside the invoked-measurement row — both discrepancies are self-disclosed within the same records and should be corrected in a follow-up.

The diff adds a pre-registered study workpaper as a Source, populates its rows/findings/limitations, and creates two Evidence records linked to that study. The study clearly separates source statements from editor inferences (§3.9): each row has a verbatim-styled ‘stated value’ plus notes, while higher-level interpretations are only in findings and in the Evidence editorInference fields. Evidence directions are explicit (‘qualifies’ and ‘undermines’) and justified in text (§3.5), and independence notes are recorded for single-lineage proponents and single-lab measurements (§3.10). Citations use real DOIs/URLs that resolve per the tooling; where a book and some paywalled articles were not retrieved, those rows are labeled ‘unverified’ or described as paywalled, with no invented locators (§3.7, §3.8, §3.15). The Evidence items are append-only additions that do not overwrite prior assessments, and their provenance (AI agent, runId, date, promptVersion, humanReviewed=false) is explicit, so no unratified draft is misrepresented as ratified (§3.14, §3.15). There is no modification of AGENTS.md or any weakening of checks; the change is a standard content extension that respects the epistemic rules.

The PR meticulously follows the epistemic rules for evidence collection. It executes a pre-registered protocol (§3.12) with exact locators for every row, honestly labeling the single unretrieved book as `unverified` (§3.8). It distinguishes between primary statements and the reviewer's inference, as seen in the Sahu 2013 row (§3.9), and appropriately uses explicit independence notes to flag repeated authorial lineages as non-corroborative (§3.10). The tool-resolved DOIs confirm the existence and accurate citation of the papers, while the few URL failures are standard bot-blocks (HTTP 403) or archive network errors, presenting no evidence of fabrication.

The diff only fills the already-frozen ORCH-S001 stub and appends two ai_extracted evidence rows, a workpaper source, and a history line; AGENTS.md and existing published judgments are untouched. Every newly added DOI resolves to a title/venue that matches the row that cites it, the Penrose 1994 book is honestly labeled unverified, paywalled bodies (McKemmish, Sahu) are disclosed as not retrieved, source-statement vs inference and independence notes are explicit, and evidence direction is classified. Three added URLs now FAIL (a malformed/dead JCS 1996 Wayback link, a 403 ScienceDirect companion, a Derakhshani archive snapshot), but each sits on a real paper and is not positive evidence of a fabricated citation or invented locator. Review-state and humanReviewed flags stay honest; this is collection under a frozen protocol, not a silent ratification.

This is a model execution of the freeze-before-audit discipline: the study was frozen in a prior PR, the criteria hash was checked, and only then were rows/findings collected (§3.12), with the study stamped runId/model/date/promptVersion and humanReviewed: false. Epistemic hygiene is strong throughout: every row separates what the paper states from the review's inference (the resonance-to-coherence-time step is explicitly flagged as the 2014 review's inference, §3.9); single-lineage proponent rows and single-laboratory invoked measurements carry independenceNotes (§3.10); failed retrievals (McKemmish 2009 body, Sahu 2013, Penrose 1994) are recorded plainly with an unverified label rather than invented locators (§3.8, §3.11); the two ledger evidence records have explicit directions (qualifies/undermines, §3.5) and split sourceStatement from editorInference. The three FAILS in citation verification are network-level (two archive.org 'fetch failed', one ScienceDirect 403 bot-block), and in each case the primary DOI resolves with matching title/venue metadata, so they are not positive evidence of fabrication; the archive URLs carry specific 2001/2024 timestamps consistent with real captures. The history.yaml entry is append-only, AI-attributed, and aiAssisted: true (§3.14); AGENTS.md is untouched and no checks are weakened. One imperfection worth fixing but not constitutional: the history entry says 'nineteen (publication, parameter) rows' while the diff and PR body contain twenty — a miscount in the changelog, ordinary error rather than fabricated provenance. Quote-level fidelity cannot be mechanically checked, but every quoted figure I can recognize (Tegmark 10^-13 s, Hagan 10^-5–10^-4 s, the 25 ms / 2×10^10 pairing) matches the real literature, and nothing internally contradicts its stated source.