Both new sources resolve mechanically and their resolved arXiv titles match exactly how the ledger uses them (SRC-VILLARROEL-2026 modelling; SRC-BRUEHL-2026 hotspots), and the duplicate DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-66148-2 resolves to the machine-learning paper it is dispositioned against, so there is no fabrication surface visible. AGENTS.md is untouched; nothing is quoted from material lacking recorded permission — the founder's supplied X post is explicitly recorded as the supplier's words and is not made a source, only the two public preprints it named are. The epistemic checks are tightened rather than dodged: 44 candidates were refused with reasoned, quote-anchored explanations (non-atomic compounds split, wrong locators rejected, overstated statements rejected), directions were re-set by a second reader with the reasons preserved in-record, independence is flagged (both preprints are VASCO-group work on the same 107,875-row catalog), and negative evidence (the null meteor-shower test) is recorded. Assessments are new append-only files stamped with runId/model/date/promptVersion and humanReviewed:false, the edition file labels itself a candidate that replaces the incumbent only if the panel prefers it, and all five seats' verdicts (three unresolved, two weakly_supported) are displayed with their own words, within one step of the draft's 'unresolved'. One flaw I would want answered on the record: verification.md's Corrections section says the SRC-YANG-VILLARROEL-2026 url fix was 'NOT applied: the field no longer reads what the proposal saw', while history.yaml records it as 'Correction applied' and sources.yaml in this diff does add that url — the two generated records disagree about whether the correction landed. The added URL itself resolves to the microscopy preprint it claims, so this is a bookkeeping inconsistency rather than a fabricated or misattributed provenance detail, and I do not treat it as a violation.

The visible content is carefully qualified, the added identifiers all resolve, and the run account shows five independent case verdicts within one step of the draft’s unresolved verdict. However, material files remain outside both the diff and the detailed account, including two installed check assessments, the draft assessment, ten harvested arbiter records, and the 4,103-line spend ledger. Those files carry the public record of who judged what, when, at what cost, and with which stamps, so their omission prevents checking exact append-only provenance and whether any AI record is misattributed or presented with an incorrect ratification status. I would need those files, or a mechanical account exposing their complete provenance headers and harvested outcomes, before finding compliance.

The pull request cleanly records the intake, drafting, verification, edition update, and cross-model check for the Before Sputnik (transients) case following the intake of two new preprints. All mechanically checked identifiers (arXiv 2609.05105, 2609.09461, 2608.26371, and DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-66148-2) resolve and match their respective works, with honest 'ai_verified' labels. The verification phase rigorously enforced epistemic rules, rejecting or splitting 44 candidate records to preserve single-observation atomicity and exact quotation. The resulting edition maintains calibrated uncertainty, presenting competing accounts with prominent disconfirmers, and records an 'unresolved' case verdict supported by multi-model concurrence (three seats unresolved, two weakly supported, all within one step). All run records, append-only history entries, and dispositions are fully documented.

The intake adds two arXiv preprints (2609.05105, 2609.09461) that the citation tooling resolves to the titles used, plus a URL correction for already-keyed 2608.26371 and a duplicate disposition of the in-press ML DOI already on the ledger. Verify refused 44 non-atomic or unsupported candidates, split survivors, and stamped second-reader direction/claim-link corrections; evidence carries exact locators, sourceStatement vs editorInference, independence notes on the shared VASCO catalog, and honest ai_verified labels. The public Villarroel post is founder-supplied under the recorded 2026-09-09 standing direction, not confidential material. The new edition keeps verdict unresolved, expands competing accounts and featured claims, and the five-seat check (three unresolved, two weakly_supported) sits within one step with stamps and humanReviewed: false. AGENTS.md is untouched; no fabricated identifiers or unratified-as-ratified presentation appear in the visible records or run account.

Every identifier the diff adds under content/ resolves in the mechanical check (arXiv 2609.05105 and 2609.09461 to the exact titles the records claim, the DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-66148-2, and arXiv 2608.26371 backing the URL correction), and the verification record shows the quotes and page locators were checked against retrieved text, with records refused wherever a quote was not found verbatim or a locator was off by a page — the opposite of fabrication. The intake item is a public post by Villarroel, not confidence material, and the post itself is explicitly not cited as a source; the two preprints are cited with honest ai_verified labels, preprint status, shared-independence-group notes, and their own limitations (§3.10, §3.13). No AGENTS.md edit appears, all new assessments and the edition are append-only, stamped with runId/model/promptVersion/date and humanReviewed: false, and the edition header explicitly labels itself a candidate rather than a ratified judgment; the five check seats (three unresolved, two weakly_supported) sit within one step of the draft's unresolved verdict on the §3.15 scale. Two things I would flag for the record rather than park on: a few prose cross-references in editorInference/research text cite IDs (TRN-C207, TRN-E207/E208, TRN-E225, TRN-C220/C224) that I cannot confirm exist because the pre-existing portions of claims.yaml/evidence.yaml are not in the diff, and the verification.md notes the URL correction was 'NOT applied' while sources.yaml and history.yaml show it applied — the substance is correct either way (the URL resolves), but the operator should confirm those internal IDs resolve and reconcile that correction note. These are imperfections, not fabrications on visible positive evidence.