{
  "blockers": [
    "adversarial_reviewer: ...",
    "statistician: review decision was revise \u2014 The walk-forward design is sound and the headline MAE improvement (2.65 \u2192 2.34, 11.7%) is internally consistent with the reported bootstrap interval, but the article's framing overstates the evidence in three places: it presents the expected-TD baseline as beating raw TDs without acknowledging that both forecasts are weak in absolute terms, the 100% bootstrap win rate is reported without noting it is a resampling artifact of a single paired comparison rather than independent replication, and the quintile narrative implies predictive skill at the individual level that the aggregate correlation (-0.50) does not support. The survivor-bias limitation is disclosed but its direction is not: conditioning on \u226540 targets in the following season mechanically inflates apparent regression for high-TD players who are more likely to fall below the threshold. These are presentation-level issues that do not invalidate the core finding but require revision before publication.",
    "editor: review decision was revise \u2014 ..."
  ],
  "checks": {
    "all_specialist_decisions_pass": false,
    "article_has_citations_and_attribution": true,
    "attrition_reconciled": true,
    "data_provenance_complete": true,
    "limitations_disclosed": true,
    "minimum_sample": true,
    "no_blocking_review_findings": false,
    "temporal_validation": true,
    "uncertainty_reported": true
  },
  "decided_at": "2026-08-31T01:09:00.633550+00:00",
  "editor_note": "...",
  "gate_version": "1.0",
  "passed": false
}