{ "slug": "cancer-immunoediting", "edition": "2026-10-09 revised", "authoring_model": "Sol 6.1", "adversarial_reviewer": "Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic)", "review_date": "2026-10-14", "canonical_path": "consensus_consistency_audit_2026-10-09\\revised\\cancer-immunoediting\\cancer-immunoediting.review.md", "divergent_copies_not_edited": [ "hsef_v53_popularity_ranks_36_40_2026-10-08\\cancer-immunoediting\\cancer-immunoediting.review.md" ], "level_before": "Β", "level_after": "Β", "descriptor_after": "Associational", "confidence_before": "Moderate", "confidence_after": "Moderate", "causal_role_before": "reinforcing / stabilizing factor", "causal_role_after": "reinforcing / stabilizing factor", "momentum_before": "Decisive work underway", "momentum_after": "Mechanistic only", "stability_changed": false, "divergence_changed": false, "pmids_checked": 65, "pmids_failed": 0, "retractions_or_eoc": 0, "claims_spot_checked": 9, "corrections_applied": 7, "counts_by_severity": { "Critical": 0, "Major": 1, "Minor": 5, "Editorial": 1 }, "revision_regression_check": { "diffed_against": "hsef_v53_popularity_ranks_36_40_2026-10-08\\cancer-immunoediting\\cancer-immunoediting.review.md", "revision_added": "one block: '### Consensus provenance reconciliation — 9 October 2026'", "revision_changed_anything_else": false, "regression_found": true, "lead_reported_artifact_present": false, "note": "The reviewer-notes self-contradiction reported elsewhere does not occur here: the preserved '## METHODS AND CONSENSUS CONTRIBUTION' section already states Consensus was used through the signed-in browser with zero API calls, and no preserved sentence denies Consensus work. A different revision regression WAS found (F6): the splice asserts 'The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition', but the 2026-10-08 edition carries no adversarial approval section or banner, so no earlier approval exists. F1-F5 are inherited." }, "validator": { "tool": "framework/hsef-hypothesis-review-v5/tools/validate_review.py", "result": "FAIL", "fail_checks": [ "v5.lay_summary" ], "warn_checks": [ "v5.claim_form" ], "passes": 33, "pre_edit_result_identical": true, "note": "v5.lay_summary is mandatory only from v5.4, which post-dates this v5.3 review. The v5.claim_form 'phenomenon' warning is on the standing rejected-conventions list because the registered claim states the sequence plus the selection consequence. Both are produced identically by the pre-edit file." }, "findings": [ { "id": "F1", "severity": "Major", "type": "momentum_boilerplate", "location": [ "AT A GLANCE table", "Final score, causal direction and M/S/D", "scorecard extended_scoring_MSD.momentum" ], "original": "Momentum: Decisive work underway. 2025 timed antigen and CRC epigenomic studies plus 2026 treatment-naive cSCC and IL1 precancer work test named boundaries; no unnamed pending trial claimed.", "corrected": "Momentum: Mechanistic only. The named artifacts are completed mechanistic and boundary studies, not experiments now in progress ... No experiment addressing the SC6 boundary check (a prospective untreated all-etiology inception cohort tracing phase transitions) was identified as underway, and no unnamed pending trial is claimed.", "evidence": "hsef-framework.md defines 'Decisive work underway' as 'Someone is running an experiment that could cross the next threshold' and requires the artifact to name that work. Every named item is a published completed study, and the review's own Stability entry states that no named pending result is asserted to move the grade.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none; momentum modifies no letter" }, { "id": "F2", "severity": "Minor", "type": "rendering_defect", "location": [ "decisive-perturbation inventory items [2], [6], [30], [31], [32], [33], [57]" ], "original": "Each item ran the evidence card's Shows text straight into its Does not show text with no separator and no terminal stop, e.g. '... with local class-II antigen requirements Scoped antigens and models; not all human tumors'", "corrected": "A sentence break plus an explicit 'Does not show:' lead-in restored from the matching card, with terminal stops added", "evidence": "The halves are stored separately in the score card and separated correctly in the evidence cards; only the join was repaired. As printed, the boundary between what a study shows and what it does not was invisible.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none" }, { "id": "F3", "severity": "Minor", "type": "rendering_defect", "location": [ "evidence card [51] Access/status", "scorecard access-status fields" ], "original": "ErratumIn: PMIDnot supplied.", "corrected": "ErratumIn: PMID not supplied in the PubMed record.", "evidence": "Known builder defect; REVIEWER NOTES already records that the IFN erratum lacks a resolved PMID.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none" }, { "id": "F4", "severity": "Minor", "type": "rendering_defect", "location": [ "REFERENCE 45" ], "original": "DOI: .", "corrected": "DOI: none in PubMed record.", "evidence": "PubMed confirms PMID 10229818 (J Immunol 1999) carries no DOI.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none" }, { "id": "F5", "severity": "Editorial", "type": "rendering_defect", "location": [ "Final score, causal direction and M/S/D" ], "original": "steps3/4 do not license", "corrected": "steps 3/4 do not license", "evidence": "Missing-space rendering defect.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none" }, { "id": "F6", "severity": "Minor", "type": "false_provenance_clause", "location": [ "Consensus provenance reconciliation block in the review", "consensus-addendum.md" ], "original": "The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition; this provenance supplement is not a new independent or blinded adjudication.", "corrected": "No earlier adversarial approval is attached to this case; this provenance supplement is not a new independent or blinded adjudication.", "evidence": "The 2026-10-08 edition contains no '## ADVERSARIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL' section and no adversarial banner, so there is no earlier approval for the supplement to defer to. Rescoped rather than deleted so the not-a-new-adjudication disclaimer survives.", "inherited_or_regression": "revision regression (introduced by the 2026-10-09 integration)", "level_impact": "none" }, { "id": "F7", "severity": "Minor", "type": "confidence_rationale_from_access_depth", "location": [ "scorecard final_score.confidence_rationale (3 fields)" ], "original": "63 primary reports with 8 selected partial-body examinations; density, heterogeneous controls and incomplete access set the confidence, not correctness.", "corrected": "Moderate reflects evidence density and reproducibility, not the reviewer's access depth and not any belief about correctness: the registered universal-scope subclaim has no replicated human inception dataset, the human genomic evidence repeatedly reuses the TRACERx and TCGA cohorts, and controls are heterogeneous across etiologies and effector pathways.", "evidence": "hsef-framework.md: confidence 'reflects evidence density and reproducibility' and says nothing about reviewer access, so 'incomplete access' was not a legitimate determinant. The band was re-derived and stays Moderate, matching the Moderate text (multiple independent studies; some replication; methodological heterogeneity remains) rather than the High text.", "inherited_or_regression": "inherited", "level_impact": "none; confidence band unchanged" } ], "rejected_findings": [ { "item": "Oct-9 revision regression reported elsewhere in this batch", "reason": "Absent here. Diff shows the revision added only the provenance block; the preserved METHODS AND CONSENSUS CONTRIBUTION section already affirms browser Consensus use with zero API calls, so there is no self-contradiction and no preserved denial of Consensus work." }, { "item": "renderer bug: 'Best-supported rival' printing the nominal model", "reason": "Absent. The score card marks the rank-1 model is_nominal=false and the nominal 'Universal obligatory three phases' at rank 5; the prose names the rank-1 rival, etiology-stratified immune editing." }, { "item": "confidence band Moderate -> High", "reason": "Re-derived. The headline rests on SC6, for which there is no replicated human inception dataset at all, and the review's own independence basis records repeated TRACERx/TCGA reuse. That is the Moderate text, not 'extensive independent replication across labs, models and assay modalities'. Band kept; only the rationale wording was corrected (F7)." }, { "item": "headline letter Β and scope-matched aggregation", "reason": "The index prescribes scope-matched. SC6 is the only subclaim at the registered universal scope and is capped at Β by the rubric's 'Association-only cancer claims cap at Β'. The Ζ on SC1 and SC4 is scope-restricted and correctly does not carry the headline, which is the 'scope trap' the index names for this entry. Alternatives correctly reported (weakest-link Β, primary-subclaim SC6 Β)." }, { "item": "subclaim decomposition and competing-model set", "reason": "SC1-SC6 match the index in substance and all five index models are enumerated; index_rule_deviation is correctly empty." }, { "item": "sixth competing model (chromosomal-instability passenger) not enumerated", "reason": "The index calls it 'worth adding whenever SC4 is the live question' — advisory, not mandatory. The confounder is addressed in substance: SC4's decision records that not every HLA event is isolated from passenger CIN, and the decisive-experiment controls list CIN-matched HLA passengers. Flagged for the lead rather than changed." }, { "item": "causal tally phrasing '7 discriminating contrasts' with no positive-unit count", "reason": "The scorecard causal_tally_audit matches the document (7 claimed, 7 after audit) and the Ζ derivations for SC1/SC4 rest on the independence basis and threshold blocks, so nothing is double-counted. Loose relative to sibling reviews, not an error." }, { "item": "PMID 42155448 and PMID 36993286 cited in the body", "reason": "42155448 is the published erratum to reference 17 (40614739) and 36993286 the bioRxiv preprint of reference 20 (38815010). Neither is counted as a primary source: they appear only as 'ErratumIn:' and 'UpdateOf:' in the Access/status lines of the corresponding cards." }, { "item": "seven references with an empty author entry mid-list", "reason": "PMIDs 30894752, 29107330, 39358601, 40614739, 32461698, 38581685 and 42155448 carry the dropped-consortium signature (mostly TRACERx), but none is in first-author position, so the collective-author builder defect does not apply and each reference renders its correct first author." }, { "item": "citation year and dropped markup", "reason": "Reference 7 (25127875) prints 2015 against a 2014 e-pub year; references 1 and 18 have PubMed titles dropping a superscript '+' and an italicised gene name. All rejected by standing convention." }, { "item": "scorecard review_metadata.reviewer = 'Codex'", "reason": "House provenance across the corpus; left unedited per the lead's instruction." }, { "item": "other provenance clauses", "reason": "The Selection line (public-interest rank 37 from the 2026-09-23 editorial ranking, prior categorical verdicts visible, earlier documents preserved) and the zero-API-call statement were checked against the package and apply to this case. No foreign-case provenance sentence was found." } ], "claims_verified_examples": [ { "pmid": "27642636", "claim": "sustained T-cell depletion leaves KPC onset and survival intact; depleted-host tumours grow in competent recipients; OVA restores rejection but not in OVA-tolerant mice", "result": "verified against abstract" }, { "pmid": "29107330", "claim": "HLA LOH in 36/90 untreated NSCLCs, often subclonal, with predicted neoantigens binding lost alleles", "result": "verified against the retrieved full text: 'In 36/90 (40%) of NSCLCs LOHHLA identified HLA LOH'" }, { "pmid": "19196996", "claim": "v-Abl and bcl-2 driven lymphomas respond to perforin loss while aggressive Myc does not", "result": "verified against abstract" }, { "pmid": "17545627", "claim": "mammary onset and tumour count change without survival benefit, NK rather than CD8 dependent", "result": "verified against abstract" }, { "pmid": "31768072", "claim": "apparent neoantigen depletion becomes negligible once trinucleotide mutational signatures are considered", "result": "verified against abstract" }, { "pmid": "18026089", "claim": "prolonged restraint of occult transformed cells, later edited spontaneous escape, phases may act independently or in sequence", "result": "verified against abstract; body unavailable, as the review states" } ], "residual_limitations": [ "PMID 18026089, the sole support for SC2's Δ, was examined at abstract depth only, so the intervention-release and spontaneous-escape frequencies behind that level are unverified; the review says so.", "Four of the eight partial-body sources carry claims checked here for abstract-level consistency rather than re-retrieved.", "Organoid correction details remain unaudited, as REVIEWER NOTES records." ], "package_level_strings_for_lead_to_propagate": [ { "file_hint": "READER.html / OVERVIEW.md / BATCH_COMPLETION.json / adjudication.json", "old": "Decisive work underway", "new": "Mechanistic only" }, { "file_hint": "READER.html / OVERVIEW.md", "old": "2025 timed antigen and CRC epigenomic studies plus 2026 treatment-naive cSCC and IL1 precancer work test named boundaries; no unnamed pending trial claimed.", "new": "The named artifacts are completed mechanistic and boundary studies, not experiments now in progress: 2025 timed-antigen and CRC epigenomic work plus the 2026 treatment-naive cSCC and IL1 precancer studies. No experiment addressing the SC6 boundary check (a prospective untreated all-etiology inception cohort tracing phase transitions) was identified as underway, and no unnamed pending trial is claimed." }, { "file_hint": "READER.html / OVERVIEW.md", "old": "ErratumIn: PMIDnot supplied.", "new": "ErratumIn: PMID not supplied in the PubMed record." }, { "file_hint": "READER.html / OVERVIEW.md", "old": "steps3/4 do not license", "new": "steps 3/4 do not license" }, { "file_hint": "READER.html / OVERVIEW.md", "old": "the seven concatenated decisive-perturbation inventory items (see F2 in adversarial-findings.json for each exact old string)", "new": "the same items with a sentence break and a 'Does not show:' lead-in" }, { "file_hint": "consensus-addendum.md / READER.html / any batch copy of the splice", "old": "The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition;", "new": "No earlier adversarial approval is attached to this case;" } ], "approval": "Following adversarial review and the corrections listed above, the revised document is approved. — Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 2026-10-14.", "lead_policy_applied": { "confidence_two_step_test": "Lead policy, round 2: (1) strike access depth as a confidence determinant everywhere; (2) re-derive the band from what remains, raising it only if access depth was the sole thing holding it down and the evidence meets the High text. Applied to this case; see the confidence finding for the outcome.", "momentum_decisive_work": "Lead policy, round 2: 'Decisive work underway' requires work actually being run that could cross the next threshold; a completed publication or trial never satisfies it, even when the artifact names a real study.", "false_approval_boilerplate": "Lead policy, round 2: the 2026-10-09 splice inserted 'The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition' unconditionally. Verify against prepublication-enrichment-2026-10-05/ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW.md before changing; rescope only where no earlier approval exists.", "renderer_best_supported_rival": "Lead policy, round 2: check the score card's is_nominal / rank_in_tournament fields; fix the prose, not the data, if the nominal is printed as the rival." } }