{
  "artifacts_reviewed": [
    "analysis.json",
    "article.md",
    "data/2025-overperformers.csv",
    "data/attrition-by-season.csv",
    "data/next-season-pairs.csv",
    "data/regression-quintiles.csv",
    "data/walk-forward-predictions.csv",
    "figures/2025-overperformers.png",
    "figures/forecast-error.png",
    "figures/regression-quintiles.png",
    "model-parameters.json",
    "provenance.json",
    "research-memo.json"
  ],
  "created_at": "2026-08-31T01:08:46.634943+00:00",
  "decision": "pass",
  "findings": [
    {
      "check": "headline-number traceability",
      "evidence": "Article frontmatter email_subject: 'The 2.8 touchdowns your projection should take back'. No reported statistic equals 2.8: the most-over quintile falls 8.31 -> 5.27 (a 3.04 decline, reported in the body as 3.0), its over_expected is +3.27, and the most-under gap is -2.66. The email subject number is unanchored to any executed result and should be aligned with a reported value (e.g., 3.0) before send.",
      "recommendation": "Change the email subject to reference a traced number, such as the 3.0-touchdown decline for the highest overperformance quintile or the 0.31 paired MAE improvement.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "article-internal consistency (named examples)",
      "evidence": "The 'Where this can break' section states 'the named examples are historical illustrations, not current draft calls,' but the article body names no players, and figures/2025-overperformers.png (present in the bundle and inventory) is never embedded or referenced in article.md. The reference is dangling.",
      "recommendation": "Either embed the 2025-overperformers figure (with its historical-illustration caveat) or remove the 'named examples' sentence.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "timestamp ordering (registration vs publication)",
      "evidence": "Article frontmatter published_at is 2026-08-30, while the locked memo created_at and both provenance retrieved_at timestamps are 2026-08-31T01:06:24Z. Read naively, the article's publication date precedes data retrieval and registration lock, which undermines the preregistration narrative even if it is a date-format or scheduling artifact.",
      "recommendation": "Set published_at to a timestamp unambiguously after the registration lock (and clarify the timezone convention), so the public record shows registration preceding publication.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "article source citation completeness",
      "evidence": "The article's provenance section cites only nflverse player_stats.csv, but provenance.json records two sources: the legacy player_stats.csv (2014-2024) and stats_player_reg_2025.csv (2025 season). The 2025 test season depends on the second file, which the article omits.",
      "recommendation": "Cite both source files (or the run manifest reference to them) in the article's provenance section.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "registration fidelity (hypothesis, estimand, design, population, model)",
      "evidence": "Executed study matches the locked memo on all dimensions: WR/TE regular-season player-seasons with >=40 targets (2014-2025); expanding-window ridge (penalty 5.0) over five same-season opportunity features; walk-forward test seasons 2018-2025 trained only on earlier seasons; estimand is the paired next-season forecast-error difference between raw and expected TDs among returning players. The 2025 test season's 128 predictions lacking next-season data are transparently carried as 'pending' rather than silently dropped.",
      "recommendation": "None. No material departure; registration remains code-authoritative.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "required outputs present",
      "evidence": "All six locked required outputs exist with hashes in the inventory: data/walk-forward-predictions.csv (1,078 predictions), data/next-season-pairs.csv (649 pairs), data/attrition-by-season.csv, bootstrap interval (analysis.uncertainty: 5,000 samples, seed 4444, CI [0.175, 0.450]), figures/regression-quintiles.png, figures/forecast-error.png. Supplementary artifacts (model-parameters.json, provenance.json, research-memo.json, 2025-overperformers figure/CSV) are also present.",
      "recommendation": "None.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "numeric consistency and attrition reconciliation",
      "evidence": "649 + 301 + 128 = 1,078 = walk_forward_predictions; retention 649/950 = 0.6832 matches retention_rate_completed_seasons; quintile n's (130+130+129+130+130) sum to 649; MAE arithmetic verified (2.6502 - 2.3398 = 0.3104; 0.3104/2.6502 = 11.71%); article body figures match analysis.json to reported precision.",
      "recommendation": "None.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "predictive vs causal claim separation",
      "evidence": "The headline claim is strictly predictive (forecast-error comparison), and both the article and analysis explicitly disclaim causal and projection interpretations: 'a benchmark, not a causal estimate of touchdown skill' and 'a baseline, not a player-specific projection or causal estimate.' The usage guidance correctly frames the result as a tiebreaker, not a verdict, and warns against converting the baseline into a current projection.",
      "recommendation": "None.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "limitations and preregistered risks disclosed",
      "evidence": "All four memo risks are disclosed in analysis.limitations and the article's 'Where this can break': survivor bias from the 40-target return threshold, omitted red-zone/route context, non-causal interpretation, and snapshot staleness. Per review policy these disclosed scope limitations are warnings, not blockers.",
      "recommendation": "None.",
      "severity": "note"
    }
  ],
  "model": "z-ai/glm-5.3",
  "role": "researcher",
  "summary": "The executed analysis faithfully implements the locked preregistration. Hypothesis, estimand, design, population, model class, and walk-forward test seasons (2018-2025) are unchanged from the memo. All six required outputs exist as hashed artifacts. Every statistic quoted in the article traces exactly to analysis.json (649 pairs; MAE 2.65 vs 2.34; 11.7% improvement; delta 0.31 with 95% CI 0.18-0.45; 100.0% of 5,000 resamples; quintile means 8.3 -> 5.3 and 2.9 -> 4.4). Attrition reconciles exactly: 649 evaluable + 301 below the next-season threshold + 128 pending = 1,078 walk-forward predictions, and retention 649/950 = 0.6832 matches the reported rate. Predictive claims are cleanly separated from causal claims, and all four preregistered risks are disclosed as limitations in both the analysis and the article. Four minor, non-blocking warnings remain and should be fixed in copyediting."
}