{
  "slug": "smoking-lung-carcinoma",
  "edition": "consensus_consistency_audit_2026-10-09/revised",
  "authoring_model": "Claude (Anthropic) cross-model red-team rebuild, HSEF v5.4 - NOT Sol 6.1",
  "adversarial_reviewer": "Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic)",
  "date": "2026-10-14",
  "level_before": "Θ",
  "level_after": "Θ",
  "confidence_before": "High",
  "confidence_after": "High",
  "pmids_checked": 18,
  "pmids_failed": 0,
  "claims_spot_checked": 11,
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "K1",
      "severity": "Major",
      "location": "independence_basis exposure-accumulation line; AT A GLANCE strongest-positive-evidence row; SC2 section",
      "original": "Exposure-accumulation line sources [1,2,4,7,8] while the exposure-withdrawal line held [3,4,5,6]; headline row cited dose-response [3,4,7,8] and cessation [4,5,6].",
      "corrected": "Accumulation line sources [1,2,7,8]; headline row cites dose-response [1,2,7,8] and cessation [3,4,5,6]; a shared-cohort sentence added to SC2.",
      "evidence": "References 3 and 4 are two follow-up reports of one cohort (British Doctors Study), so that cohort was counted in two different independence lines. The framework rule is that independence counts studies, not reports, because one cohort's systematic error defeats all of its reports. Matters at Theta, where the letter rests on an independence basis above Zeta. Validator moved from WARN to clean PASS on this check."
    },
    {
      "id": "K2",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "location": "citation_ledger and evidence_inventory, all 18 rows",
      "original": "No study_id on any row.",
      "corrected": "A distinct study_id per study; rows 3 and 4 share BRITISH-DOCTORS-STUDY.",
      "evidence": "Validator warning v5.study_identity, whose stated fix is to tag rows so a reader does not read N records as N independent investigations. Tagging surfaced K1."
    }
  ],
  "rejected_findings": [
    "Confidence band High: the rationale already rests on evidence density and reproducibility and never mentions access depth. Nothing to strike under the lead's two-step test; band stands.",
    "Momentum 'Mechanistic only' correct and does not treat a completed publication as work underway.",
    "Scope-matched aggregation applied exactly as written: SC1 is the only scope-matching subclaim; SC2 and SC3 reported separately; the spread to weakest-link Zeta is disclosed.",
    "No collective-author defect of either known form; reference 17's 'Secretan' is a personal surname, not an organisation fragment.",
    "No rendering defects: no glued numerals, no empty DOI field, no 'PMIDnot supplied' string.",
    "No spliced 'earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition' sentence; the supplement's closing line is correctly hedged and true.",
    "REVIEWER NOTES and the consensus-consistency supplement describe different, non-conflicting passes; consensus-addendum.md matches the embedded block.",
    "Dated facts correct as of the stated cutoff.",
    "Levels SC1 Theta, SC2 Eta, SC3 Zeta and the headline Theta follow from the quoted caps, thresholds and rule; the blocks on Omega and on Eta are correctly argued."
  ],
  "lead_policy_applied": {
    "confidence_bands": "Two-step test applied; nothing to strike. High stands.",
    "momentum": "Completed-work test applied; value is 'Mechanistic only'.",
    "collective_authors": "Both variants checked. None found."
  },
  "regression_check": "No regression introduced by the 2026-10-09 revision relative to the earlier edition. K1 is a flaw in the rebuild's own new independence basis, not an inherited one.",
  "validator": "PASS - 0 fail, 0 warn, 33 pass (was 0 fail, 1 warn, 32 pass)",
  "scorecard_changed": true,
  "residual_limitations": [
    "Mixed access depth across the ledger, several rows at abstract or metadata depth.",
    "Smoking-attributable fraction by histology and population unresolved."
  ]
}