{
  "artifacts_reviewed": [
    "analysis.json",
    "article.md",
    "claim-ledger.json",
    "artifact_inventory",
    "figure_contract",
    "provenance.json",
    "locked_research_memo.json",
    "mechanical_checks",
    "specialist_reviews"
  ],
  "created_at": "2026-08-31T23:05:21.797236+00:00",
  "decision": "pass",
  "findings": [
    {
      "check": "reproducibility_claim_vs_inventory",
      "evidence": "The article's provenance section states the run manifest records the code path, seed, model coefficients, walk-forward predictions, and bootstrap outputs, but the artifact inventory contains no code file or run manifest.",
      "recommendation": "Before or at publication, either add the analysis code (or its recorded path/hash) and run manifest to the distributed artifact inventory, or soften the provenance statement to match what is actually distributed. Not blocking because the claim concerns internal record-keeping rather than a published statistical result.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "survivor_bias_visibility",
      "evidence": "Next-season evaluation conditions on returning to 40+ targets (301 of 1,078 pairs excluded); the article discloses this and notes the net direction of bias is uncertain.",
      "recommendation": "Keep the 'volume survivors' framing prominent in all distribution surfaces so readers do not over-apply the 8.3-to-5.3 decline to players who lose roles.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "over_application_guardrails",
      "evidence": "The result is a modest benchmark improvement (both forecasts still miss by more than two TDs on average) and the article frames it as a weak tiebreaker, not a projection.",
      "recommendation": "Retain the 'How to use it' guardrails and the 'not a current-season recommendation' subtitle on the 2025 overperformers figure in all distribution copy.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "email_preview_time_frame",
      "evidence": "Email preview says '2014-2025 data' while next-season evaluation spans 2018-2025; defensible since underlying data cover 2014-2025, but slightly loose.",
      "recommendation": "Consider aligning email copy to the 2018-2025 evaluation window for precision.",
      "severity": "note"
    },
    {
      "check": "illustrative_figure_scope",
      "evidence": "The 2025-overperformers figure is not among the locked memo's required outputs but is labeled 'Historical example, not a current-season recommendation'.",
      "recommendation": "Ensure distribution surfaces never promote this figure as a current-season ranking.",
      "severity": "note"
    }
  ],
  "model": "z-ai/glm-5.3",
  "role": "editor",
  "summary": "All mechanical gates pass and no blocking specialist finding remains. Headline, dek, figure titles, and email copy each stand alone with population, outcome, and time frame; central numbers (649 pairs, 2.65 vs 2.34 TD MAE, 11.7% improvement, 8.3-to-5.3 quintile decline, 0.31 TD delta with 0.18-0.45 CI) trace exactly to the analysis and figure contracts. Survivor bias, non-causal scope, and within-sample bootstrap framing are disclosed and preserved adjacent to the claims. The article appropriately positions the finding as a weak tiebreaker for fantasy managers rather than a projection."
}