The two new sources (doi:10.1038/s41598-025-25902-8, doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6956.696) both RESOLVE and their titles match what the records use them for (a 2025 gastrocnemius trigger-point elastography study; the 1994 BMJ community tender-point survey), and each added record carries a quote plus a section/table locator; the operator's hand-corrections even narrowed inherited two-place locators to where each quote actually sits and added a limitation disclosing that the Ballyns abstract and Results assign the 0.9 AUC to different pairs — the article repeats that discrepancy to the reader rather than hiding it. The run account shows the checks working rather than being dodged: compound records and claims were repeatedly refused for non-atomicity (§3.2) with reasons written into dispositions.yaml, rejected claims (VASO-C033, C183, C185, C186) are tombstoned and no longer featured, and directions were corrected to 'context' where a passage did not bear on the claim (§3.5). The seat objections from earlier rounds are answered on the record: VASO-E067 now states only that the runners' protocol omitted breathing instruction, the article explicitly refuses to spend that record on outcomes it does not carry, and VASO-C001 was regraded from provisionally_supported to weakly_supported with the prevalence half held as unmeasured (§3.9, §3.13). Operator by-hand edits (splits of E073, the C188/C189 entry, the reverted E023 refusal) are each stamped with actor, runId, promptVersion and a reason, and the account openly says no second model read the hand-made parts and that the panel is their check — honest provenance rather than misattribution (§3.14, §3.15). AGENTS.md is untouched and no confidential or unpermissioned material is published. Remaining imperfections (featured anchor-only claims from the unread SRC-JHONG essay) are disclosed in the article as carrying no weight and are pre-existing rather than introduced here.

The protected head account is sufficient to decide this despite the omitted files. The head assessment expressly says VASO-C001 “bundles two propositions,” while the rationale says the composition step cannot split it and merely recommends a later split; §3.2 requires compound Claims to be split now. The combined weakly-supported grade also masks the material distinction the article itself identifies: occurrence is documented in limited settings, while commonness across the general population is unmeasured. Before merge, split or narrow C001, attach E082/E083 only to the occurrence proposition with their limited direction, and leave the general-population prevalence proposition unresolved.

The PR successfully incorporates primary evidence from Landfald et al. 2025 and Croft et al. 1994, both of which mechanically resolve and are accurately represented. Prior panel objections regarding claim atomicity (splitting compound claims VASO-C033 and VASO-C183 into atomic comparisons VASO-C182, VASO-C184, VASO-C187, VASO-C188, VASO-C189) and the treatment of VASO-E067 have been rigorously addressed through iterative re-verification and transparent operator corrections recorded in history.yaml. In response to objections regarding VASO-C001, the head edition properly qualifies the opening text to attribute population commonness to the founding essay rather than an established finding, downgrades C001 to weakly supported at low confidence, and notes the recommendation to split the claim at the next intake pass. Competing hypotheses remain symmetrically evaluated, evidential directions and limitations (such as the pain-selected nature of Croft 1994 and lack of breath control in Landfald 2025) are clearly maintained, and no constitutional provisions are breached.

The head edition/assessment (2026-09-21-013849) and ledger digest show real, tooling-resolved citations (Landfald 2025; Croft 1994), honest ai_verified labels, exact locators, and extensive atomic splits of compound evidence/claims (C033→C182/C184/C187–C189; E023/E094/E095→pairwise parts) with reasoned refusals and context-vs-supports directions. Panel objections on E067 outcomes, R012/R020 drift, non-atomic calf parallels, and C001 overclaim were answered on the record: E067 is context-only for omitted breath instruction; C039 stays unresolved; C001 is regraded weakly_supported at low confidence with occurrence vs unmeasured population-frequency separated in reasoning and article, and a later split recommended. Assessments are append-only AI drafts stamped with runId/model/date; history/dispositions stamp operator hand-fixes; no AGENTS.md edit, no confidence material, no fabrication, no check-weakening. Omitted working files do not hide a head-state violation visible in the protected run account.

The diff edits no constitutional file, and every added identifier (the Landfald 2025 Scientific Reports DOI, the Croft 1994 BMJ DOI, both PMC URLs) resolves mechanically with titles matching what the records claim, so the fabrication bar is not met. The run account shows the checks working as designed, not weakened: the verify and answer passes refused compound and mis-linked records with written reasons, splits were re-read against their parts by a second reader, the two failed-rollbacks (E084 state, claimIds-too-small) are disclosed with the writes rolled back, and the GPT-5.6 Sol panel objections were adopted rather than argued past — including downgrading VASO-C001 to weakly_supported at low confidence with the occurrence/prevalence propositions separated and the unmeasured-prevalence concession stated in the article. The operator's by-hand corrections (E073 split, E023 revert to provisional, R012/R020 fixes) are each stamped with date, session runId and promptVersion, reasoned in the append-only history, and the reverted record carried no weight until its parts passed second-reader verification — disclosed accountability rather than dodging. Evidence directions are honestly corrected (E067 to context; the two-key read marked as the edition's inference, not a grade), the head edition discloses the abstract/results ROC inconsistency in its own source rather than hiding it, and the one remaining imperfection — VASO-C001 still bundling occurrence with prevalence — is graded down, flagged in the rationale, and recorded with a recommendation to split at the next intake pass, which is ordinary imperfection handled within the constitution, not a violation.