{
  "slug": "ultra-processed-food",
  "canonical": "consensus_consistency_audit_2026-10-09\\revised\\ultra-processed-food\\ultra-processed-food.review.md",
  "authoring_model": "Sol 6.1 (original edition); cross-model red-team synthesis recorded in the document",
  "adversarial_reviewer": "Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic)",
  "date": "2026-10-14",
  "level_before": {
    "hsef_level": "Γ",
    "confidence": "Moderate",
    "momentum": "Decisive work underway"
  },
  "level_after": {
    "hsef_level": "Γ",
    "confidence": "Moderate",
    "momentum": "Mechanistic only"
  },
  "level_changed": false,
  "pmids_checked": 30,
  "pmids_failed": 0,
  "retractions_or_eocs": 0,
  "claims_spot_checked": 13,
  "claims_contradicted": 0,
  "validator": "PASS under the documented registry-compatibility build of validator 2.4 (0 fail, 1 warn, 33 pass), matching the package's own validation-report.json. Base 2.4 build fails only on the registry results row [18] for lacking a PMID/DOI, identically on the pre-edit original.",
  "counts": {
    "Critical": 0,
    "Major": 0,
    "Minor": 2,
    "Editorial": 0
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "E1",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "location": "Consensus provenance reconciliation block; consensus-addendum.md",
      "original": "The earlier adversarial approval refers to its original edition",
      "corrected": "rescoped: the 2026-10-06 approval attached to this case covers the dated 2026-10-05 research addendum, not this review edition",
      "evidence": "the prepublication-enrichment package's adversarial log approves this case's research addendum on 2026-10-06 (9/9 identifiers, 0 corrections); the review edition itself was never adversarially approved, and the clause was spliced unconditionally by the 2026-10-09 integration script"
    },
    {
      "id": "E2",
      "severity": "Minor",
      "lead_adjudicated": true,
      "location": "AT A GLANCE table; section 13 Momentum; scorecard extended_scoring_MSD.momentum; change_record.what_moved_it; red-team synthesis note and its dated snapshot",
      "original": "Momentum: Decisive work underway",
      "corrected": "Momentum: Mechanistic only, with the artifact rewritten to say why the named trial does not qualify",
      "evidence": "Lead-adjudicated after this reviewer flagged the call as borderline. The framework defines the value as 'Someone is running an experiment that could cross the next threshold', and both halves fail: NCT05290064 has completed, so nothing is being run, and its posted contrast is non-significant, which the review's own Stability paragraph says would not carry SC4 across Δ. Naming a real trial satisfies the artifact-specificity requirement, which is necessary but not sufficient. A completed trial whose result does not cross belongs in the evidence narrative, not in Momentum. The original 2026-09-29 edition had 'Mechanistic only'; the red-team pass moved it and this correction returns it. Momentum modifies no letter, so level and confidence are unchanged."
    }
  ],
  "rejected_findings": [
    "Confidence Moderate - rationale is built from density and reproducibility and quotes the band text; it does not use access depth, and the score card records that the level does not rest on the registry-only record. Re-tested against the High text; band holds.",
    "'timeline rejects generated CRISPR caption' - looks like imported wording but is verified true against this case's own 2026-10-05 enrichment records, which log that a generated Consensus timeline caption referred to CRISPR and was discarded",
    "Best-supported rival renderer defect - no such line in this edition; models_evaluated[0] is M2, is_nominal false, rank 1, nominal at rank 4",
    "Aggregation - weakest-link preregistered, both alternatives reported, scope-matched correctly scored on SC4 and SC5",
    "Reviewer-notes contradiction - not present; the process limitation concerns Scite, and the Consensus artifacts postdate the graded passes",
    "Base validator 2.4 FAIL on the registry results row - pre-existing and the documented reason for the registry-compatibility build",
    "v5.study_identity warning on eight rows - pre-existing and recorded; shared cohorts are stated in PROVENANCE",
    "Structural placement of the spliced provenance block between the framework heading and section 1"
  ],
  "residual_limitations": "Abstract-depth records are labelled by the review, item [18] remains registry-posted rather than peer reviewed, and body-level figures absent from the abstracts (offered and consumed energy densities, nutrient fractions, corrected UPDATE energy densities, macronutrient splits in [4] and [6]) were checked for internal consistency only.",
  "coordinator_round2_artifact_checks": {
    "false_approval_boilerplate": "corrected (rescoped; an approval exists but covers the dated addendum)",
    "confidence_set_from_access_depth": "not present; rationale is density-based",
    "best_supported_rival_renderer_bug": "not applicable; no such line, and models_evaluated[0] is a non-nominal rank-1 model",
    "reviewer_notes_contradiction": "not present",
    "momentum_boilerplate": "present and corrected (lead-adjudicated finding E2)"
  },
  "files_changed": [
    "ultra-processed-food.review.md",
    "consensus-addendum.md",
    "SHA256.txt",
    "validator-adversarial-2026-10-14.txt (new)",
    "ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW.md (new)",
    "adversarial-findings.json (new)"
  ],
  "propagated_to": [],
  "divergent_copies": [],
  "notes_on_dated_records": "The 2026-09-30 red-team snapshot in redteam_synthesis.score_after keeps its own momentum value and now carries a superseded_after_this_pass note; the dated consensus-validation.json snapshots are likewise left as records of their own dates."
}