{
  "slug": "cancer-stem-cell",
  "edition": "2026-10-09 revised edition of the 2026-09-30 red-teamed review",
  "authoring_model": "Sol 6.1",
  "adversarial_reviewer": "Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic)",
  "date": "2026-10-14",
  "round": 2,
  "level_before": "Γ",
  "level_after": "Γ",
  "confidence_before": "High",
  "confidence_after": "High",
  "momentum_before": "Decisive work underway",
  "momentum_after": "Mechanistic only",
  "pmids_checked": 19,
  "pmids_failed": 0,
  "retractions_found": 0,
  "claims_spot_checked": 12,
  "validator": "PASS (0 fail, 1 pre-existing WARN v5.study_identity, 33 pass) using validate_review.py 2.4, this v5.4 package's validator of record; no version mismatch applies",
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "severity": "Major",
      "regression": true,
      "location": "spliced 'Consensus provenance reconciliation' block in review.md and the same sentence in consensus-addendum.md",
      "issue": "Approval boilerplate spliced in on 2026-10-09 implies this review was adversarially approved; the earlier approval attaches to a different artifact",
      "original": "The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition; this provenance supplement is not a new independent or blinded adjudication.",
      "corrected": "The earlier adversarial approval on this case attaches to its 2026-10-05 prepublication review addendum (approved 2026-10-06), not to this review document, which carried no adversarial approval before 2026-10-14. This provenance supplement is not a new independent or blinded adjudication.",
      "evidence": "prepublication-enrichment-2026-10-05/website-series/cancer-stem-cell/review-addendum.md carries the 2026-10-06 banner and approval line; ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW_SUMMARY_2026-10-06.md records that package as 16 addenda. This review document carries no banner, no approval section and no sol61-original backups from that pass."
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "severity": "Major",
      "regression": false,
      "location": "AT A GLANCE summary row; scorecard extended_scoring_MSD.momentum",
      "issue": "Momentum 'Decisive work underway' justified by two completed publications, contradicting the adjacent Stability entry",
      "original": "Decisive work underway",
      "corrected": "Mechanistic only (artifact and justification rescoped)",
      "evidence": "Framework requires work actually being run that could cross the next threshold; Chan et al. 2026 and Mzoughi et al. 2025 are completed reports, and Stability already records that no named pending result was found. Momentum modifies no letter."
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "severity": "Editorial",
      "regression": false,
      "location": "REVIEWER NOTES, red-team synthesis note",
      "issue": "Provenance pointer did not resolve from this packaged copy",
      "original": "redteam/REDTEAM_REPORT.md and redteam/SYNTHESIS_CHANGE_LOG.md",
      "corrected": "reviews/cancer-stem-cell/redteam/redteam-pass-2026-09-30/REDTEAM_REPORT.md and .../SYNTHESIS_CHANGE_LOG.md, with a statement that both paths are relative to the repository root and lie outside this package",
      "evidence": "The files exist, but the relative paths do not resolve from this packaged copy. A provenance pointer that does not resolve is worse than no pointer, because it implies a verifiable record the reader cannot reach. Lead ruling, 2026-10-14."
    }
  ],
  "rejected_findings": [
    "Scope-matched aggregation: this edition does NOT repeat the September red-team defect. It quotes the rule, identifies SC2/SC3/SC6 as the cross-tumour-scope subclaims at Γ, explains that SC1/SC4/SC5 reach Ε only by narrowing, returns Γ, and prints all three rules (weakest-link Γ, primary-subclaim Ε, scope-matched Γ). Correct as written.",
    "Confidence High: rationale rests on evidence density and reproducibility with no appeal to reviewer access depth; the two-step confidence test leaves it untouched.",
    "'Best-supported rival' names the rank-1 dynamic-hierarchy model; the nominal is rank 3. No renderer substitution.",
    "Causal-tally arithmetic consistent: 8 minus Mzoughi (reclassified) = 7, plus Jiang 2026 and Perelli 2025 = 9, as causal_tally_audit.tally_arithmetic records.",
    "CanStem303C and glasdegib trial numbers match their abstracts exactly, including the refusal to read either as population-selective.",
    "Melanoma rarity figures (25% limiting dilution, 27% single-cell average, 28% in the follow-up, none of 22 markers enriching) match their abstracts; the 12-65% per-patient range and 69/254 denominator come from full text read at complete depth.",
    "Headline Γ argued up to Ε and down to Β; both rejected on the review's own grounds.",
    "Reviewer-notes contradiction (Oct 9 splice artifact) does not apply: the preserved notes never deny Consensus work, and the spliced block declines to infer a comparison count.",
    "No collective-author, empty-DOI, 'PMIDnot supplied' or missing-space rendering defects in this review."
  ],
  "residual_limitations": "10 of 19 sources read at abstract/metadata depth; Al-Hajj 2003 inaccessible at full text; Scite unavailable so citation-context counts absent.",
  "approval": "Approved as revised — Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 2026-10-14."
}