All twenty identifiers the diff adds resolve, and each resolved title matches the row it is attached to (e.g. 10.1093/mnras/staa1343 → 'Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB Sky' for the 99.98% proponent row; 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/021 → 'Re-evaluating evidence for Hawking points in the CMB' for the 87% rebuttal row). The two identifiers that resolve only at doi.org without Crossref metadata (stx2299, epjp/i2013-13022-4) are exactly the two rows the study flags in its limitations as resting on ledger notes that characterize results partly through later papers of the same program — honest labeling rather than concealment (§3.8). Every cell carries a `ai_verified` label from the permitted vocabulary, CCC-E023 separates `sourceStatement` from `editorInference` (§3.9), declares direction and strength (§3.5), is stamped ai_extracted with runId/model/date (§3.14, §4), and `humanReviewed: false` is preserved (§3.15). The frozen criteria and column list are untouched — only rows/findings/limitations are appended, with the criteria hash restated — so §3.12 holds; the runId/promptVersion move from freeze-v1 to collect-v1 is a stage stamp, not a rewrite of the frozen record. Independence is handled explicitly (three nulls described as independent, the 2017/2020 same-program dependency disclosed) per §3.10, and negative/unfavorable evidence on both sides is recorded per §3.11. No AGENTS.md edit, no confidential material (the 2025 preprint is public arXiv; only its discovery route is noted, in pre-existing context lines), and the discarded fabricated searcher brief is disclosed rather than used. Mild tension with §3.7 in that CCC-E023 cites the site's own workpaper as its Source, but every row inside it anchors to a primary document, so this is ordinary imperfection, not violation.

The change adds a study table, a synthetic workpaper source, and one new Evidence record, all within existing content files; AGENTS.md is untouched, so §3.15’s human-reservation rule is respected. Citations for every added external paper are backed by DOIs/arXiv IDs that the verification tool confirms as resolving, and the Meissner–Penrose 2025 preprint is correctly treated as unrefereed, satisfying the real-citation and honesty requirements in §3.7 and §3.15. The added evidence CCC-E023 clearly separates sourceStatement (what the study/workpaper reports) from editorInference (how that is interpreted), meeting §3.1 and §3.9, and it is linked atomically to a single proposition about signal-model provenance and preregistration, in line with §3.2. Evidence direction is explicitly marked as supports with strength strong, and the text explains how the table bears on the claims without conflating credibility and diagnosticity, consistent with §3.4 and §3.5. Exact provenance is kept via a workpaper source (SRC-CCC-S001) with studyId, criteria hash, and an exactLocator inside the Evidence, and no specific page/timestamp locators are fabricated; where verification is partial or coarse, this is stated in limitations, honoring §3.8 and §3.13. The history entry records the new evidence and study as a dated, AI-authored content change without overwriting prior judgments, satisfying versioning and append-only expectations in §3.14. The limitations candidly document discarded fabricated AI output and reliance on prior verification notes, which aligns with the no-fabrication, transparency, and negative-evidence norms of §3.11 and §3.15 rather than violating them.

The change meticulously follows the epistemic and formatting rules. All added arXiv and DOI citations mechanically resolve and match their claimed papers, satisfying the requirement for real citations and exact provenance (§3.8, §4). The agent correctly uses the study as a source container to extract a specific evidence record, keeping source statements distinct from editor inferences (§3.6, §3.9). AI involvement is explicitly stamped and transparently documented, including the commendable rejection and logging of a previous model's fabricated data, ensuring no unratified or fabricated records are presented as human conclusions (§3.15, §4).

The complete diff adds study CCC-S001's collected table, workpaper SRC-CCC-S001, evidence CCC-E023, and a changelog line. Every DOI and arXiv id the table newly cites resolves, and resolved titles/venues match the papers named (Gurzadyan–Penrose 2010/2013, Wehus–Eriksen, Moss–Scott–Zibin, Hajian, Meissner–Nurowski–Ruszczycki, DeAbreu, An et al. 2020, Jow–Scott, Lopez, Bodnia, Meissner–Penrose 2025). Verification is labeled ai_verified, the 2025 row is flagged unrefereed, two second-hand characterizations are disclosed, sourceStatement is split from editorInference, and AI origin is stamped (reviewState ai_extracted, humanReviewed false). No AGENTS.md edit, no invented locator visible in the packet, no confidential-material citation, and no check-weakening. Ordinary synthesis strength and multi-claim linking are editorial judgment, not a constitutional break.

All twenty added identifiers (arXiv/DOI) mechanically RESOLVE and the resolved titles match the papers each row describes — Gurzadyan–Penrose 2010, the three 2011 nulls, DeAbreu 2015, the 2020 Hawking-points claim and its Jow–Scott rebuttal, Lopez 2022, Bodnia 2024, and the flagged-unrefereed 2025 preprint — so §3.15's real-citations rule is satisfied, and spot-checkable quotes (Jow–Scott's 87% after marginalization, Hajian's 'lacks quantitative predictions', Moss et al.'s 're-discovered that the CMB contains structure') match the known record rather than contradicting it. The new evidence CCC-E023 is append-only, carries explicit direction (supports), an honest ai_extracted review state, full provenance (runId/model/date/promptVersion), and cleanly separates sourceStatement from editorInference per §3.9; the editorInference itself models calibrated uncertainty by stating the table 'neither establishes nor refutes the circles or Hawking points' (§3.13). The two weaker rows (2013, 2017) disclose in limitations that their characterization runs partly through later same-program papers, and the PR's report that a fabricated searcher brief was discarded and three misremembered arXiv IDs were corrected at native verification is the §3.8/§3.15 machinery working, not evading it. SRC-CCC-S001 is honestly self-labeled as an AI-authored site workpaper with per-row primary anchors, so it does not smuggle a secondary source in as primary. The history entry records actor and aiAssisted per §3.14, nothing published judgment is silently changed, AGENTS.md is untouched, no checks are weakened, and humanReviewed: false plus 'parking expected' shows the change is offered for concurrence rather than presented as ratified. The omitted-files list is empty and the diff is complete, so nothing hidden could carry a violation.