Verdict: Minor Revision (corroborates codex round-7 + Gemini round-1
on disposition) but with explicit dissent on readiness — three Major
findings both prior reviewers missed must close before Phase 5 splice.
Both-missed Major findings:
- M3 (factual overstatement): "98-100% within-source-firm collisions"
in Abstract / §I item 6 / §V-C / §V-G / §VI item 4 actually applies
only to the stricter same-pair joint event; computed from Table
XXIV the deployed any-pair rule yields 98.8 / 76.7 / 83.7 / 77.4
(range 76.7-98.8%). Abstract's "regardless of which Big-4 firm" is
wrong as written.
- M1 (K=3 mechanism reversion in §IV): Table XVI column headers plus
Tables IX/X/XIV/XVII/XVIII still use "hand-leaning / mixed /
replicated" mechanism naming that §III-J line 90 explicitly
retires; §III/§I/§V/§VI properly use descriptor-position language.
- M4 (duplicate heading): Phase 4 prose §V has both "G. Pixel-Identity"
(line 105) and "G. Limitations" (line 109); second should be "H".
Plus M2 (Gemini-missed): Table-numbering cascade. Renaming XV-B → XIX
in isolation collides with §IV-M's existing XIX-XXV; requires cascade
XIX→XX, XX→XXI, …, XXV→XXVI.
Provenance: 5 fresh spot-checks complementing Gemini's 5; only minor
disclosure gap flagged (Script 46 dh=15 plateau ratio derived
post-hoc from JSON, not fabrication risk).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
gbanyan
c95c8cb01d