{
  "slug": "ldl-ascvd",
  "edition": "consensus_consistency_audit_2026-10-09 revised (red-team synthesis of 2026-09-30, HSEF v5.4)",
  "round": 2,
  "date": "2026-10-14",
  "authoring_model": "Sol 6.1",
  "adversarial_reviewer": "Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic)",
  "canonical_path": "consensus_consistency_audit_2026-10-09\\revised\\ldl-ascvd\\ldl-ascvd.review.md",
  "propagate_to": [],
  "divergent_copies": [],
  "revision_regression_check": "Finding E1 is a regression introduced by the 9 October splice: the Consensus consistency block presents 33 as the review's source count, which the earlier edition did not do and which contradicts the preserved 39. Nothing else in the splice contradicts the preserved document, and it leaves grade, scope, ledger and subclaims untouched.",
  "level_before": "Ζ",
  "level_after": "Ζ",
  "confidence_before": "Moderate overall (High for SC2/SC3/SC5)",
  "confidence_after": "Moderate overall (High for SC2/SC3/SC5)",
  "role_before": "primary driver (step 3)",
  "role_after": "primary driver (step 3)",
  "msd_before_and_after": "Mechanistic only / Stable / Mild overstatement (implied Η, assessed Ζ, +1) - unchanged",
  "subclaims_before_and_after": "SC1 Η, SC2 Θ, SC3 Η, SC4 Ζ, SC5 Η - unchanged",
  "pmids_checked": 39,
  "pmids_failed": 0,
  "retractions_or_eoc_found": 0,
  "errata_attached_to_parent_rows": 3,
  "load_bearing_numbers_spotchecked": 16,
  "validator": "PASS - 0 fail, 0 warn, 33 pass (v5.4 validator); 30 pass (archived v5.3 validator)",
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "E1",
      "severity": "Major",
      "category": "internal consistency / revision regression",
      "location": "Consensus consistency validation block, frozen-inventory line and conclusion; the same two sentences in consensus-addendum.md",
      "original": "Frozen scorecard inventory: 33 evidence rows; 28 claims. ... The score stays Ζ; original sources/claims stay at 33/28.",
      "corrected": "Frozen scorecard inventory: 39 citation-ledger sources, of which 33 are scored evidence rows; 28 claims. ... The score stays Ζ; original sources/claims stay at 39/28 (33 of the 39 sources are scored evidence rows).",
      "evidence": "33 is the length of the scorecard's evidence_inventory, but the sentences present it as the review's source count, contradicting the header ('39 sources - 28 claims'), AT A GLANCE, provenance_header.sources_total 39, the 39-row citation_ledger, and the review's own 'Fourteen of 39 records'. Scoped rather than deleted so both inventories stay traceable.",
      "level_impact": "none"
    }
  ],
  "systematic_artifacts_checked": {
    "false_approval_boilerplate": "present but TRUE here, so rejected rather than rescoped: an earlier independent adversarial pass exists (2026-09-30 cross-model red-team pass; 25 of 32 findings accepted; grade moved from eta to zeta and confidence from High to Moderate), recorded in this document's synthesis note and at reviews/ldl-ascvd/redteam/redteam-pass-2026-09-30/",
    "confidence_set_from_access_depth": "absent - the rationale cites directionally inconsistent evidence from independent groups and heterogeneous assays, which is the framework's Moderate text; access depth is reported separately. The overall band tracks the binding subclaim SC4",
    "best_supported_rival_renderer_bug": "absent - the first model is the broader apoB-particle retention model with rank_in_tournament 1 and is_nominal false; the nominal is ranked 2 and AT A GLANCE records 'Nominal-model rank: 2 of 5'",
    "reviewer_notes_consensus_contradiction": "absent - no assertion that Consensus work was not performed; the spliced block states its own limits",
    "scorecard_reviewer_field": "left as issued; corpus-wide house provenance"
  },
  "rejected_findings": [
    {
      "id": "R1",
      "issue": "Headline could be Η on the scope-matched reading",
      "reasoning": "The registered sentence is conjunctive and the framework requires scoring the conjunction, not its easier half. Weakest-link across SC1-SC4 was pre-registered on 2026-09-29 before outcome adjudication and returns Ζ from SC4; the Η reading is reported, not substituted, and all three rules' results are stated. Η for SC4 is refused on rubric text plus a named contradiction from independent groups; Ε is refused because the alternative models are genuinely narrowed."
    },
    {
      "id": "R2",
      "issue": "Momentum 'Mechanistic only' despite two active outcome trials being named",
      "reasoning": "The artifact names PREVAIL (NCT05202509) and ORION-4 (NCT03705234) with enrolment and completion dates and states why neither crosses SC4's particle-versus-cargo boundary. Framework definition applied, not boilerplate."
    },
    {
      "id": "R3",
      "issue": "The 2026-09-04 Lp(a)HORIZON sponsor topline is a dated non-peer-reviewed fact",
      "reasoning": "Named for currency, flagged as not peer reviewed, excluded from scoring, and attributed to the broader apoB model rather than the graded wording."
    },
    {
      "id": "R4",
      "issue": "Collective authors dropped by the reference builder",
      "reasoning": "References 4, 7, 8, 24 and 27 all carry group or consortium authorship and all render with the group named and no leading comma."
    },
    {
      "id": "R5",
      "issue": "Rendering defects",
      "reasoning": "None found."
    },
    {
      "id": "R6",
      "issue": "Errata on references 6, 22 and 23",
      "reasoning": "Attached to their parent rows rather than given rows of their own, which is the required ledger discipline; none is the sole support for a score."
    }
  ],
  "residual_limitations": [
    "14 of 39 records read in complete full text, 25 at abstract or metadata depth; the review states this accurately and attributes no beyond-abstract claim to the latter.",
    "The apoB change behind the evacetrapib null could not be re-verified; the review lists it as an open knowledge gap and it is load-bearing for reading the CETP results as concordant.",
    "The 2026-09-04 Lp(a)HORIZON topline has no peer-reviewed report and could not be verified; it is excluded from scoring.",
    "No cardiovascular or lipidology rubric was supplied, so rubric 06's lifespan and healthspan language is adapted to hard ASCVD events and plaque trajectory. The adaptation is disclosed and is the most contestable element."
  ],
  "files_changed": [
    "ldl-ascvd.review.md",
    "consensus-addendum.md",
    "validator-adversarial-2026-10-14.txt",
    "SHA256.txt",
    "ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW.md",
    "adversarial-findings.json"
  ],
  "files_unchanged": [
    "ldl-ascvd.scorecard.json"
  ],
  "package_level_files_not_edited": [
    "README.md",
    "COMPLETION.json",
    "FINAL_VERIFICATION.json"
  ],
  "approval": "Approved as revised. - Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 2026-10-14."
}