{
  "artifacts_reviewed": [
    "analysis.json",
    "article.md",
    "claim-ledger.json",
    "figure_contract",
    "locked_research_memo",
    "provenance.json",
    "mechanical_checks",
    "specialist_reviews",
    "artifact_inventory"
  ],
  "created_at": "2026-08-31T23:11:22.587380+00:00",
  "decision": "pass",
  "findings": [
    {
      "check": "alt_text_accuracy",
      "evidence": "The threshold-ladder figure's alt_text describes tiers as 'Round 1, Rounds 2\u20133, and Rounds 4\u20137' while the figure's axes and claim_metrics report four tiers: Round 1, Round 2, Round 3, and Rounds 4\u20137.",
      "recommendation": "Correct the alt_text for figures/rookie-wr-threshold-ladder.png to describe the four displayed tiers before publication; this is an accessibility accuracy fix, not a claim error.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "zero_rate_precision",
      "evidence": "Round 7 shows a 0.0% point estimate (n=66) with a Wilson upper bound of 5.5%. The article says the late-round estimates 'are not laws' but does not note that the zero is consistent with true rates up to ~5.5%.",
      "recommendation": "Add one sentence noting the Round 7 zero is a small-sample point estimate whose upper confidence bound is ~5.5%, so it should not be read as a true zero rate.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "trend_model_caveat",
      "evidence": "The pick-level logistic trend (OR 0.49 per 32 picks) assumes an approximately log-linear decline in odds, but the round-level pattern is not strictly monotone (Round 5 at 12.7% exceeds Round 4 at 11.1%).",
      "recommendation": "Add a brief caveat that the single-slope trend is a summary and that round-level estimates, particularly Rounds 4\u20135, deviate slightly from strict monotonicity.",
      "severity": "warning"
    },
    {
      "check": "distribution_surfaces",
      "evidence": "Title, dek, email subject, and email preview each stand alone and name the population, outcome, and comparison frame; no undefined shorthand or generic phrasing detected. Figure titles are self-contained with population, n, and outcome.",
      "recommendation": "None.",
      "severity": "note"
    }
  ],
  "model": "z-ai/glm-5.3",
  "role": "editor",
  "summary": "All mechanical gates pass and no blocking specialist findings remain. The headline stands on its own: it names the population (Round 1 vs. Day 3 drafted WRs), the measured outcome (top-36 fantasy seasons), and the time frame (by Year 3), with both rates matching the analysis exactly (65.5% vs. 6.2%). Denominators reconcile (445 receivers; 1,335 player-season windows), the primary outcome was preregistered, uncertainty intervals are reported, and the article correctly frames draft capital as predictive rather than causal while preserving the disclosed limitations (fantasy-utility threshold, undrafted players excluded, cohort truncated at 2023 for complete windows). The remaining warnings are non-blocking editorial notes."
}