{
  "version": "1.1",
  "scope": "Selected public dispositions, not the complete internal corpus register",
  "primary_limitation": "Independent human review of current work missing",
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "PUB-01",
      "claim": "Returning to the original membership always restores the previous endpoint",
      "evidence_type": "exact counterexample plus conditional theorem",
      "status": "rejected_as_general",
      "source": "/research/simulation/2609062308-priority-state/paper/files/Priority_State_Dynamics_v07_Full.pdf",
      "locator": "equations9-12 and Theorem4.1",
      "surviving_claim": "Immediate insertion/deletion cancels without mixing; general restoration after mixing is conditional."
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-02",
      "claim": "The public v06 history was absent",
      "evidence_type": "documented withdrawn review finding",
      "status": "withdrawn",
      "source": "/research/simulation/2609062308-priority-state/epistemology/versions/reviewer-v07/PROCESS.en.md",
      "locator": "line66; public v07 account bound to corrected local sourcev08",
      "correction": "Partial inspection was mistaken for a complete absence check. The original failure remains part of the revision history.",
      "limit": "This case does not establish superiority of a review framework.",
      "secondary_source": "/research/simulation/2609062308-priority-state/epistemology/history.json"
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-03",
      "claim": "The formal membership result directly establishes properties of human or LLM auditors",
      "evidence_type": "cross-domain interpretation",
      "status": "unestablished_mapping",
      "source": "theorem-source-audit-v1.0.md",
      "surviving_claim": "The conditional algebraic result concerns defined stochastic priority maps; a new representation and evidence are required."
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-04",
      "claim": "Whether the conditional algebra of Theorem4.1 and Corollary4.2 holds under the stated assumptions",
      "evidence_type": "direct source-based AI reconstruction and exact diagnostics",
      "status": "no_gap_identified_under_stated_assumptions",
      "source": "theorem-source-audit-v1.0.md",
      "limit": "Not independent human review, formal proof-assistant certification, full-manuscript validation or novelty assessment.",
      "origin": "Source-audit question; not an allegation attributed to AI reviewer"
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-05",
      "claim": "No verdict resets implies no membership residue",
      "evidence_type": "exact finite diagnostic with scoped interpretation",
      "status": "rejected",
      "source": "checks/REVIEW04_CHECKS.json",
      "surviving_claim": "No-reset exact case still changes mean."
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-06",
      "claim": "Post-mixing verdicts always have less residue",
      "evidence_type": "exact finite diagnostic with scoped interpretation",
      "status": "rejected",
      "source": "checks/REVIEW04_CHECKS.json",
      "surviving_claim": "Exact case: L1 1/10 before, 3/10 after mixing."
    },
    {
      "id": "PUB-07",
      "claim": "A sequential two-cycle check characterizes multiple auditors or endless churn",
      "evidence_type": "exact finite diagnostic with scoped interpretation",
      "status": "rejected",
      "source": "checks/REVIEW04_CHECKS.json",
      "surviving_claim": "Finite example demonstrates order dependence only."
    }
  ]
}