{
  "title": "What this review means",
  "includeSubclaimIllustrations": false,
  "redteamReviewed": true,
  "accessNotice": "Source checking used bounded original primary abstract passages/status records and selected original partial-body passages. No complete-abstract or complete-paper audit, or independent scientific peer review, is claimed. Detailed access counts and limitations appear in the review.",
  "overview": "LA-rich oil replacement reliably changes lipid markers; exact coronary-event benefit needs more careful source and intervention separation, while blanket inflammatory harm and carnivore superiority remain unproved.",
  "implications": "The preregistered primary-subclaim rule returns Γ from SC2. Sixty original reports provide strong experimental lipid effects and a substantial but conflicting clinical and prognostic context. The accessible exact trial evidence does not verify a positive oil-replacement coronary-event crossing; older positive trial reports remain inaccessible at primary-result depth. LA-rich oils were not silently redefined as chemically pure LA, and ALA-containing oils are not excluded simply because they contain ALA. Whole-diet or smoking cointerventions and shared metabolic instruments retain explicit limits. Weakest-link returns Α for carnivore superiority; primary-subclaim and scope-matched return Γ. The verdict does not endorse a blanket seed-oil-harm claim or suggest saturated fat or carnivore diets are clinically superior.",
  "limitations": "60 primary reports with 3 selected partial-body examinations; density, heterogeneous controls and incomplete access set the confidence, not correctness. The grade applies to the exact registered claim; stronger findings for narrower subclaims remain separate. No complete-paper audit or blinded calibration is claimed. This educational review does not establish an individual treatment recommendation."
}