{
  "slug": "oncogene-addiction",
  "round": 2,
  "group": 12,
  "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/oncogene-addiction/oncogene-addiction.review.md",
  "edition_note": "Revised edition carrying the 9 October 2026 Consensus provenance supplement; reviewed as it now stands.",
  "divergent_copies_not_touched": [
    "hsef_v53_popularity_ranks_36_40_2026-10-08/oncogene-addiction/oncogene-addiction.review.md"
  ],
  "level_before": "Η",
  "level_after": "Η",
  "confidence_before": "Moderate",
  "confidence_after": "Moderate",
  "role_before": "primary driver",
  "role_after": "primary driver",
  "pmids_checked": 66,
  "pmids_failed": 0,
  "retractions_or_eoc_found": 0,
  "claims_spot_checked": 12,
  "validator": {
    "before": "PASS — 0 fail, 1 warn, 31 pass (v5.claim_form WARN)",
    "after": "PASS — 0 fail, 1 warn, 31 pass (identical)",
    "note": "The single WARN is the rejected claim_form false positive."
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "AR-1",
      "severity": "Major",
      "type": "revision_regression_false_approval_boilerplate",
      "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 sentence was spliced in unconditionally by the 9 October integration step. The earlier edition at hsef_v53_popularity_ranks_36_40_2026-10-08/oncogene-addiction/ contains no ADVERSARIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL section and no adversarial banner, so no earlier approval exists to refer to.",
      "level_impact": "none"
    },
    {
      "id": "AR-2",
      "severity": "Major",
      "type": "renderer_bug_nominal_printed_as_rival",
      "location": [
        "AT A GLANCE, Best-supported rival"
      ],
      "original": "Best-supported rival: Scoped dominant-oncogene maintenance dependence (model M1).",
      "corrected": "Best-supported rival: Clonal bypass and lineage plasticity (Zeta), the highest-ranked non-nominal model (M2), with citations re-pointed to its own evidence.",
      "evidence": "The field prints models_evaluated[0], which the score card marks is_nominal true and rank_in_tournament 1. A rival must be non-nominal; M2 is the highest-ranked such model. Politi (16705038), which supports the nominal, was removed from the rival's citation set and the resistance-allele and YAP/TEAD controls substituted.",
      "level_impact": "none"
    },
    {
      "id": "AR-3",
      "severity": "Major",
      "type": "momentum_boilerplate",
      "location": [
        "AT A GLANCE table",
        "Final score, causal direction and M/S/D",
        "scorecard extended_scoring_MSD.momentum"
      ],
      "original": "Decisive work underway",
      "corrected": "Mechanistic only",
      "evidence": "The required artifact names only completed and published 2026 RAS-on preclinical programmes and then states that no recruiting trial or imminent outcome is asserted. The framework reserves 'Decisive work underway' for an experiment being run that could cross the next threshold; none of the named work addresses the boundary check (prospective nonresponse mapping within each baseline pair, or residual-compartment elimination with matched restoration).",
      "level_impact": "none (M/S/D modify no letter)"
    },
    {
      "id": "AR-4",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "type": "confidence_justified_by_access_depth",
      "location": [
        "scorecard final_score.confidence_rationale and its two duplicates"
      ],
      "original": "66 primary reports with 9 selected partial-body examinations; density, heterogeneous controls and incomplete access set the confidence, not correctness.",
      "corrected": "Rationale restated on evidence-density and reproducibility grounds (shared model programmes among the founding perturbations, active-comparator clinical arms, heterogeneous control sets), explicitly excluding the reviewer's access depth.",
      "evidence": "Lead two-step test (2026-10-14). Step 1: access depth struck as a determinant. Step 2: band re-derived from what remains and retained at Moderate, since the review documents substantive evidence-quality reservations. The framework states that confidence reflects evidence density and reproducibility and not reviewer access. The Moderate band is retained because the Moderate text is met on its own terms and High is not: the review's own independence analysis counts independent disease settings rather than extensive cross-modality replication of the withdrawal experiment.",
      "level_impact": "none; band unchanged at Moderate"
    },
    {
      "id": "AR-5",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "type": "missing_required_artifact",
      "location": [
        "Final score block, Divergence line",
        "scorecard extended_scoring_MSD.divergence.justification"
      ],
      "original": "Contested; no single implied-level arithmetic. No manufactured field consensus or arithmetic gap.",
      "corrected": "Same value, now naming the split: the field's framing of oncogene addiction as a near-universal single-node vulnerability against the same literature's documented primary nonresponse, tissue-specific feedback and target-engaged residual survival (PMID20573926,21639808,22281684,21157039).",
      "evidence": "Divergence is computed, not felt; Contested requires showing a genuine split. Both prose and score card previously asserted only the absence of an arithmetic gap."
    },
    {
      "id": "AR-6",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "type": "rendering_defect",
      "location": [
        "evidence cards [10], [12], [52]",
        "six scorecard ledger rows"
      ],
      "original": "ErratumIn: PMIDnot supplied",
      "corrected": "ErratumIn: PMID not supplied",
      "evidence": "Builder rendering defect fusing the label to the next word. PubMed supplies no erratum PMID for these records, so the flag content is correct and the cards already state that linked notice details were not examined."
    }
  ],
  "rejected_findings": [
    {
      "id": "RJ-1",
      "claim": "The headline should be Theta (long-term ALK and CML control) or Zeta (forced transgene models and pleiotropic drugs).",
      "resolution": "Rejected both. Scope-matched is applied correctly: the registered central claim is scoped to prospectively defined driver-tumor pairs, SC1's scope matches it, and the broader SC2 and SC3 are reported separately at Gamma rather than gating a headline whose scope they exceed. Theta fails because nonresponse, tissue-specific feedback, host and apoptosis dependence and residual survival are major exceptions. Zeta fails because endogenous conditional KRAS, native MYC inhibition, orthogonal withdrawal and drug controls and several genotype-enrolled trial families exceed single-line confirmation. The required alternatives are reported (weakest-link Gamma, primary-subclaim Eta)."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-2",
      "claim": "Confidence should be High because the clinical evidence is extensively replicated.",
      "resolution": "Rejected. Only the stated basis was wrong (AR-4). The Moderate text fits: the review documents shared model programmes among the founding perturbations, active-comparator clinical arms that do not test driver-on versus driver-off, and heterogeneous control sets, and its own independence analysis counts independent disease settings rather than cross-modality replication of the withdrawal experiment."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-3",
      "claim": "v5.claim_form WARN: entry_form is 'phenomenon'.",
      "resolution": "Rejected per convention. The registered restatement is a declarative causal proposition naming both the mechanism and its consequence."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-4",
      "claim": "Reference years disagree with PubMed.",
      "resolution": "Rejected per convention. References 7, 28, 29, 52, 59 and 62 differ from the PubMed e-pub year by one (print versus e-pub)."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-5",
      "claim": "Collective-author leading-comma defect, empty DOI fields, fused numeral tokens or retrieval artifacts present.",
      "resolution": "Rejected; screened across all 66 references, the timeline and the evidence cards and none present. The STIM reference carries a trailing consortium entry in PubMed but its first author is a named individual."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-6",
      "claim": "The preserved REVIEWER NOTES contradict the spliced Consensus block by denying that Consensus work was performed.",
      "resolution": "Rejected for this case: the defect is absent. METHODS AND CONSENSUS CONTRIBUTION states that Consensus was used through the signed-in browser with zero API calls, and REVIEWER NOTES independently records the per-request tool limit and the single comparable original-text return (Politi, of eight requested). The two blocks agree."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-7",
      "claim": "The Eta independence basis rests on lines that are not independent.",
      "resolution": "Rejected. The seven recorded lines are not defeated by one systematic error, and the review correctly collapses the Omomyc pair, the FLAURA pair and the three CROWN reports into single lines."
    },
    {
      "id": "RJ-8",
      "claim": "Trial numbers, response rates or the 2026 RAS-on results are overstated.",
      "resolution": "Rejected; verified against PubMed abstracts. IRIS 1106; NEJ002 73.7 versus 30.7 percent and 10.8 versus 5.4 months; BRIM-3 675, 48 versus 5 percent; FLAURA 556; PROFILE 1007 347; PROFILE 1014 343; ALEX 303; CROWN 296 with seven-year 55 versus 3 percent in the same cohort; Druker phase 1, 53 of 54 at 300 mg or above; MET amplification 4 of 18. Wei and Orlen are correctly held to preclinical scope and Foth's two cases are not inflated into a response rate."
    }
  ],
  "residual_limitations": "Kapoor's 28 regressing and 20 recurring tumors, the Omomyc three-of-four four-week figure and Corbin's 'more than 95 percent Philadelphia positive' are Results-level numbers confirmable in this pass only against the review's own declared partial-body receipts. Access depth is unchanged (9 partial-body, 57 complete abstract/status). Linked erratum and correction details remain unexamined, as the review states.",
  "propagation_strings_for_lead": [
    {
      "file_class": "package-level (OVERVIEW.md, READER.html, EDITORIAL_HANDOFF.md, BATCH_COMPLETION.json)",
      "old": "Decisive work underway",
      "new": "Mechanistic only",
      "scope": "the oncogene-addiction momentum field only"
    }
  ],
  "approval": "Approved as revised. — Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 2026-10-14."
}