INDEPENDENT INTERNAL AI REVIEW SUMMARY
9 November 2026 -- manuscript version 1.1

Reviewed final manuscript SHA256:
3aff3b12f899fc68f02dc1a84a3a3dc40d9ad37881a55ed119c8a6b2d1890b3b

Three separate AI review roles were used: focused priority/overlap review,
mathematical proof review, and hostile mathematical/interpretive review.
They are independent review passes within an AI-assisted authoring workflow,
not human referees, journal endorsement, proof-assistant verification or a
guarantee of independence in training data. The authoring agent integrated
the corrections; review roles did not write a competing manuscript.

The priority pass recommends an addendum, not a broad standalone novelty claim.
It compares actual acquisition, self-diagnosis, active diagnosis, automata
testing, ordered-search and symbolic-control texts. Its search and access
limits are recorded in sources.txt. Historical priority remains unresolved.

Proof round 1 checked the inherited mathematics and requested explicit
publication details: a common-prefix disturbance proof; finite threshold atoms
for arbitrary B; positive H; paid query units; half-open endpoints; random-tape
quantifiers; adaptive initial-time batch semantics. These were incorporated.
Round 2 found a sentence that wrongly suggested improvement when batch was
feasible. Round 3 verified its correction and the K=1 tree base case against
the final hash. Verdict: no supported mathematical objection remains.

The separate hostile pass checked the manuscript's all-horizon/library/initial
set quantifiers, endpoints, deadlines, randomized lower bound, and claimed
research increment. Round 1 independently found the same sentence contradiction
and an ambiguous minimality phrase, and requested primary literature comparison.
Round 2 verified all repairs against the final hash. Verdict: no supported
major mathematical or interpretive objection remains in this scoped addendum.

Checks: the author reran the original exact rational suite and the proof
reviewer's separately implemented suite. Both passed; their scripts/results
are included. The hostile reviewer separately corroborated 120 input words
through H=4 and 38 representative first-difference pairs; that smaller check
is supporting review activity, not an additional formal certificate.

The proof reviews concern the manuscript source. Subsequently that unchanged
source compiled twice and all seven rendered pages were visually inspected.
The separate layout_qa.json records this production check. No website rendering
or specialist accessibility audit is claimed.
External human specialist review, originality and physical validation remain
open. This summary does not claim that all possible objections have been ruled
out, only that the recorded reviews have no supported major objection left.