Independent Second Review and Red-Team/Blue-Team Boundaries
Second review independently discovers disagreements; red and blue teams attack material disputes. Neither can replace adjudication by forcing decimal agreement.
Explains how independent review finds disagreements and records disputes. The earlier rule that decided cases from decimal differences has been retired.
Independent second review
A second evaluator should, without knowing the first score, independently inspect factual existence, translated names and identity, outcome boundaries, duplicate consumption, personal attribution, and both overstatement and undue understatement. The value of second review is to expose disagreement, not to supply another number that can be averaged directly.
Red-team / blue-team challenge
When facts, identity, personal attribution, independent terminal benefit, or the causal account of value are materially disputed, one side constructs the strongest case while the other is dedicated to finding counterexamples, evidence gaps, and alternative explanations. Final adjudication must independently verify sources and replay calculation. The height of a score is not itself a reason to trigger dispute.
Status boundary
Entries still lacking evidence and independent review may be published for scrutiny with provisional points in the current research edition, but must not be labeled certified. Disagreement cannot be mechanically averaged or forced into a fixed decimal gap to pass a threshold; objections concerning shared M7, precursor consumption, and work families must be published with the current point estimate.