# Adversarial review log - cancer-stem-cell (2026-10-09 revised edition)

**Authoring model:** Sol 6.1 - **Adversarial reviewer:** Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) - **Date:** 2026-10-14 - Round 2

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Level before / after | Γ / Γ (unchanged) |
| Confidence before / after | High / High (unchanged; rationale already free of access-depth reasoning) |
| Momentum before / after | Decisive work underway / **Mechanistic only** |
| Findings | 0 Critical - 2 Major - 0 Minor - 1 Editorial |
| Of which revision-introduced regressions | 1 (A1) |
| REFERENCES PMIDs verified | 19 / 19 (0 failed, 0 retracted; DOIs also checked) |
| Load-bearing claims spot-checked | 12 |
| Validator | PASS - 0 fail, 1 pre-existing WARN, 33 pass, validate_review.py 2.4 (this package's validator of record; see `validator.txt`) |

## Findings

| ID | Severity | Location | Original to corrected |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Major (**revision-introduced regression**) | Spliced Consensus provenance block; `consensus-addendum.md` | "The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition" implied this review had been approved. Rescoped to name what the 2026-10-06 approval actually covers: this case's 2026-10-05 prepublication review addendum. |
| A2 | Major (inherited) | AT A GLANCE row, scorecard momentum | "Decisive work underway" justified by two completed publications, to "Mechanistic only" with the artifact rescoped. Level, confidence and role unchanged. |
| A3 | Editorial | REVIEWER NOTES, red-team synthesis note | `redteam/REDTEAM_REPORT.md` and `redteam/SYNTHESIS_CHANGE_LOG.md` did not resolve from this packaged copy; repointed to `reviews/cancer-stem-cell/redteam/redteam-pass-2026-09-30/`, with a statement that both lie outside this package. |

**On the September red-team finding.** This edition was checked specifically for the scope-matched misapplication that was
found in the earlier cancer-stem-cell review (reading the rule as "highest subclaim" rather than "highest subclaim whose
scope matches"). It does not repeat it: the rule is quoted, the cross-tumour-scope subclaims SC2/SC3/SC6 are identified at
Γ, the Ε-level subclaims are shown to reach Ε only by narrowing, and all three aggregation rules are printed with their
results. Correct as written.

Nine further findings were checked and rejected - see `adversarial-findings.json`.

**Approval:** Following adversarial review and the corrections listed above, the revised document is approved.
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 2026-10-14.