{
  "artifacts_reviewed": [
    "analysis.json",
    "article.md",
    "provenance.json",
    "research-memo (locked)",
    "artifact_inventory",
    "mechanical_checks"
  ],
  "created_at": "2026-08-31T01:22:25.789510+00:00",
  "decision": "pass",
  "findings": [
    {
      "check": "selection_effects",
      "evidence": "analysis.attrition; article 'Where this can break'",
      "recommendation": "Next-season evaluability conditions on returning to >= 40 targets: 649 of 950 completed-next-season pairs (68.3% retention), 301 excluded, 128 pending 2026 data. The article discloses this and correctly states that the net direction of bias in the forecast comparison is uncertain. For the quintile regression claims, survivor conditioning is conservative in direction for high scorers (non-returning overperformers fall further than the reported 3.0 TD decline), but the 0.31 TD MAE gain must not be generalized to non-returners. The quintile chart is also computed on the returning sample (n's sum to 649). No change required beyond keeping this disclosure visible and unedited in publication.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "historical_scope_and_covariates",
      "evidence": "analysis.limitations; article 'Where this can break', 'How to use it'",
      "recommendation": "Season-level opportunity features only (no red-zone, route, quarterback, or health context) and the source snapshot ends with 2025. Both are disclosed, and the article explicitly bars converting the baseline into a current projection. The bundled figures/2025-overperformers.png is unused by the article; if it is ever incorporated, it must carry the same historical-scope caveat and must not be framed as a current player ranking.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "uncertainty_interpretation",
      "evidence": "analysis.uncertainty; article 'What we modeled'",
      "recommendation": "The 95% interval [0.18, 0.45] is a paired bootstrap within a single evaluation sample; probability_expected_better = 1.0 describes bootstrap resamples, not a prospective probability that the advantage holds. The article states this correctly ('not independent replications'). Retain that language; do not promote the bootstrap result to a repeated-sampling or prospective claim.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "temporal_leakage",
      "evidence": "analysis.model, analysis.walk_forward_test_seasons; article 'What we modeled'",
      "recommendation": "Verified clean. Each 2018-2025 test season is scored by a model trained only on earlier seasons; expected touchdowns are out-of-sample at prediction time; all features (targets, receptions, yards, air yards, first downs) are end-of-prior-season quantities. No leakage path identified.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "attrition_reconciliation",
      "evidence": "analysis.attrition, analysis.regression.quintiles",
      "recommendation": "Verified. 649 + 301 + 128 = 1,078 walk-forward predictions; retention 649/950 = 0.68316 matches the reported rate; quintile n's (130+130+129+130+130) sum to 649; 1,078 predictions over 8 of 12 seasons is proportionally consistent with 1,606 player-seasons.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "claims_vs_locked_estimand",
      "evidence": "article passim vs analysis JSON",
      "recommendation": "All quoted figures reproduce from the analysis JSON: MAE 2.65 vs 2.34, paired delta 0.31, 11.7% reduction, CI 0.18-0.45, top-quintile 8.3 -> 5.3 (decline 3.0), most-under quintile 2.9 -> 4.4. Claims are conditioned on returning seasons, matching the locked estimand; the 'modest benchmark improvement, not a complete projection' framing is accurate.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "baseline_fairness",
      "evidence": "analysis.model.baseline_rationale; article 'What we modeled'",
      "recommendation": "Both forecasts use only prior-season information on identical players and outcomes, so the comparison is fair. A shrunk opportunity baseline beating raw persistence is partly mechanical under regression to the mean, but that is precisely the preregistered hypothesis, and the article does not present it as a projection system or a causal estimate of touchdown skill.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "multiplicity",
      "evidence": "analysis.forecast",
      "recommendation": "Single primary comparison (paired MAE). The RMSE (3.43 -> 3.00), though not quoted in the article, corroborates the direction, so there is no selective-reporting concern.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "presentation",
      "evidence": "article 'Where this can break'; data/attrition-by-season.csv",
      "recommendation": "Optional improvement, not required for publication: quantify attrition in the article (68% retention; 301 excluded, 128 pending) and note explicitly that the quintile chart is also computed on the returning sample.",
      "severity": "note"
    }
  ],
  "model": "z-ai/glm-5.3",
  "role": "statistician",
  "summary": "No blocking findings. The expanding-window walk-forward design is implemented and described without temporal leakage: expected touchdowns are out-of-sample for every 2018-2025 test season, and next-season outcomes never enter feature construction. Attrition reconciles exactly (649 evaluable + 301 below-threshold + 128 pending = 1,078 walk-forward predictions; retention 649/950 = 0.6832 as reported). Every headline number reproduces from the analysis JSON, and the claims stay inside the locked estimand (returning WR/TE seasons). Survivor conditioning, historical scope, and coarse covariates are disclosed in the article and are not overclaimed; the 'Where this can break' section must remain visible through publication."
}