INDEPENDENT INTERNAL AI REVIEW - PUBLIC SUMMARY
Version1.0, 9 November2026

Two separate AI reviewers performed a proof review and a hostile review of the
theorem outline and inherited evidence, then reread the actual manuscript text.
Neither review is human peer review, an exhaustive priority search, physical
validation, a proof-assistant certificate, or a guarantee of correctness.

The proof reviewer independently checked900 original-coordinate posterior count
pairs across n,r in {1,3,5,7,9}; it checked residual functions at every time cut
for25 allocations and both interfaces (50 memory contracts).
The hostile reviewer independently weighted all256 block-error masks and checked
all-cut joint/prediction widths for (3,3),(3,13),(5,7).
These reviewer calculations did not use the primary verifier's implementation.

Initial mathematical precision requests: restrict the fixed16-bit header formula
to representable values; connect unique Bayes outputs to the state lower bound
for all eligible controllers. Both are incorporated.

Initial hostile-review requests: define audit as calibration/diagnosis rather
than family validation; disclose supplied equalities and measured target
parameters; distinguish output interfaces, fixed allocations, calculated code
costs, fresh output randomness, and simulation from architecture advantage.
All were incorporated into the abstract and operative propositions.

Both final rereads found no supported remaining major or minor mathematical
repair in the actual manuscript. An optional suggestion to name the full-model
estimator explicitly was judged unnecessary to correctness and not adopted.
Final text review did not certify layout or package contents. Those received
separate writer checks: six-page PDF rendered/inspected, portable code exercised,
ROM equality verified, and public archive allowlisted/scanned.

The raw returned review reports and production records are retained privately.
This public summary omits reviewer-session identifiers and machine-specific paths.