{"findings":[{"claimIds":["C2","C3","C4","C5","C6","C7","C8","C9","C11"],"code":"AUTHORSHIP_ROLE_PRECISION","evidenceIds":["ev-942f7e3d9f9dcfe0c1109937e295b73540a4c2118d2c6ce5b675ba2b1c88fb0c","ev-fba5ebd9abfd4fc8aa8bd7627df2aae89331c6eca2d7956c8891d7777e5f4452","ev-502aa568c315b42bbd6ba69ff9dd7c68687946c2c1d961eb656a8ed6cae9a29d","ev-3e4de8db8cd55ba4b296c94a49fd1d66ee8bd6ceaf940a48defc198eaf94c3f4","ev-79d87bf0b48f4f5123cf76daa0664f797002c6d0a68a4c13dd09287687210c42"],"explanation":"The draft attributes the key publications to R0637 by co-authorship, which is accurate, but the phrasing 'co-authored work on...' with C7/C8 built on them should stay attentive to author position: E110 places her at author index 3 (last) on the rule-checker paper SYN-PUB-07261, where the abstract says the tool was 'implemented in Python' without attributing specific components. By contrast E181 (author 0) on SYN-PUB-01515, E057 (author 0) on SYN-PUB-07041, E039 (author 0) on SYN-PUB-07040, E092 (author 0) on SYN-PUB-07257, and project participation E094 (principal investigator, SYN-PRJ-0366, E064) do support a leading role on the workflow project. No claim states she invented a named component, and the study-specific limitations are declared, so this is not a false inference; the advisory note is that the retrospective pilot (C8) should not implicitly assume her authorship-level ownership of rules she may have only co-reviewed, and training/handover commitments remain unestablished (C10 already says so).","id":"F-AUTH-POS","recheckQuestion":"If revised, does the text avoid implying that R0637 personally authored or can hand over undocumented internals of the rule-checker (where she is author 3, E110), relying instead on the openly deposited code (E047) and her PI role in SYN-PRJ-0366 (E064/E094)?","scope":"claim","severity":"advisory"},{"claimIds":["C7","C9"],"code":"INFERENCE_BAND_MISMATCH","evidenceIds":["ev-0d07b731ba68bc5a58433d02b4fbca4f95f6350e82089d127b682cd182083097","ev-0d978b4c3a4369c08f18aef1378ccdfc622bcda76a776712a82043a34089cb07","ev-670202703a8dd70bdc60b72719c4a0fb3a434410fe82800498213a97efe22fdb","ev-b01cc2ecd6f0db85d2f8b8c9e6df8e5d1a2be4cf69f2df46513c2a5ee52fdab8"],"explanation":"C7 recommends 'PDN and return-path checks' then escalation to near-field scanning and FDTD as catching hotspots 'during layout review' for the 150–450 MHz band. The supporting sources are narrower in frequency: the PDN evidence (E007) reports a 4.8 dB noise-floor reduction only over 400–600 MHz on one FPGA/ADC vehicle, and the moat study (E075) quantifies a 7.4 dB penalty at 600 MHz (third harmonic of a 200 MHz clock), outside or at the top edge of the 150–450 MHz band; the near-field evidence (E135) gives rank agreement at each board's maximum with ±4.5 dB and degradation only above 700 MHz but was validated on seven consumer boards. C7 already labels these as study-specific and C9 makes retrospective 150–450 MHz agreement the go/no-go test, so no unsupported guarantee is made; the advisory point is that the mechanism coverage inside 150–450 MHz rests on plan-to-validate rather than on existing per-frequency measurements, which the pilot design correctly targets.","id":"F-C7MECH","recheckQuestion":"Does C7/C9 keep the 150–450 MHz within-band validation explicitly as an open pilot objective (not an already-demonstrated result), given E007's 400–600 MHz and E075's 600 MHz scope?","scope":"claim","severity":"advisory"},{"claimIds":["C3"],"code":"DUAL_LISTED_CONTENT","evidenceIds":["ev-fba5ebd9abfd4fc8aa8bd7627df2aae89331c6eca2d7956c8891d7777e5f4452","ev-3ae1976b4bfeef27e9b8483a3bb9ea165cc66b6e8d082d22fe667b18d54195e7","ev-47e7a550e5d40d527ada7e62dbb8e6a527a1b9c0b7cde4716a7edbd27e38ce77"],"explanation":"SYN-PUB-01515 (E047) is registered as content for both R0637 (E181, author 0) and R0115 (E033, author 1). The draft cites it only for R0637, where author-0 position and her PI role on the linked project (E064) make the attribution the strongest available; the shared listing does not weaken C3's factual content statements about four prototype boards, two partner companies, 5.2–11.7 dB reduction and 2.1 fewer cycles, all of which are quoted directly from E047 and bounded in C3's limitations. No cross-candidate independence claim is made in the draft, so this is informational.","id":"F-DUALART","recheckQuestion":"Does the draft avoid using E047 as independent corroboration across candidates or as evidence of R0637's exclusive ownership of the workflow?","scope":"run","severity":"advisory"},{"claimIds":["C8","C10"],"code":"BENCH_ACCESS_TERMS","evidenceIds":["ev-2e80694b62aaffdd97185b6f096c3ffe4273791ea5162105b1c0848814f1cbca","ev-a98863713ed3847d425c4a749e9f675480590cd3603294a38c93810f8ae65ab0","ev-b0842f300d0fd6d0df3960f8f5d1a7119798dbb88decd17744af72ba5ad8f837"],"explanation":"C8/C10 correctly record that near-field scanning bench access is cost-recovery and subject to teaching commitments (E132) and that work is framed as contract research (E025), consistent with the registered open_to text; the company's request for a self-run workflow rather than per-board consultancy is addressed by deliverables (documented checklist plus step-by-step workflow, C8) and the milestones in cooperationScope. What is genuinely unresolved is commercial terms, lab hours and NTech/Nexara-side equipment and licensing (HyperLynx vs FDTD), and the draft lists these as unknowns rather than asserting availability. This is honestly labeled uncertainty, not a defect, and no participation restriction in E025/E132/E137 is violated.","id":"F-COST","recheckQuestion":"Do C8/C10 keep cost, schedule and licence provisions as items to be agreed, without stating them as committed availability?","scope":"run","severity":"advisory"}],"hash":"079050be436255e7a94b9425d2c83405286319cfb9a46017f2d9091234458898","id":"review_1c70179c-fdfc-4939-9413-9e7f34190a97","runId":"d66da659-7683-4511-917f-38a9bbfefca2","target":{"counterReportHash":"07f3d416066d6dc9abce3b1390d932caf67324fdfcd81f55b0c7c7e8cbdad65d","draftHash":"d64ae3ac77ab5f6a00c6476cce0b1283719a471ba3a22ef73bd789ed9176f764","draftVersion":1,"evidenceSnapshotHash":"18736f9d05ad1a8b0703670eac0dfde5b356cc34f53dc3acb3d9ff0d37d1df7f","inputHash":"5881c63f9006abb7a4bdcc8c0cc8dc7b41e9cee4122f3da1a5df4bd4f5d710e5","poolHash":"35047e343169b819a85ad18788daeae844fb3c4526c025698bfc800b977fee32","poolVersion":1},"verdict":"approve","version":1}