# Version-bound scoped review record

Model: GPT-6 (Codex; exact runtime variant not exposed)
Date: 2026-10-17
Reviewer role: same Codex agent preparing this publication; not independent peer review.
Main-file SHA-256: 3e222f197266ca0283b9618f4eb4d4cc1818c0e90a916d724c3981404da6eb02

## Task instruction (verbatim user message)

> author: eggtea      you can create the things that are missing include the experiment code  I accept

## Review scope set by the preparing agent

Review the supplied work to prepare truthful MathHub metadata, concise takeaways and verification. Inspect the source statements and evidence actually available, preserve assumptions and provenance, and disclose unperformed checks. No separate model/referee was invoked. This record contains the complete scoped review response below; it does not purport to reconstruct a historical review dialogue.

## Complete review response

I checked the stated oracle, assumptions in latex/algorithm.tex, abstract, companion contract and supplied review records. The takeaways preserve the known covariance, entire extension, integrability, amplitude and clean-variance requirements. Exact unbiasedness does not imply clean-oracle variance. The endpoint PR covariance and the empirical status of the neural-network example are explicitly separated. The classical correction identity is not attributed as a new discovery. This is a scoped statement/provenance review, not a fresh line-by-line proof review of the whole manuscript. The existing 6 Astra reports are supplied evidence, not reviews executed by me.

## Existing evidence and limitations

- `5_review_en.pdf` and `verification/5_review_en.txt`: supplied report/translation; text extracted from the PDF, with possible math-glyph extraction artifacts. Original prompt, execution logs and exact review timestamp are unavailable. No missing dialogue has been invented.
- `6_review_zh.pdf` and `verification/6_review_zh.txt`: supplied report/translation; text extracted from the PDF, with possible math-glyph extraction artifacts. Original prompt, execution logs and exact review timestamp are unavailable. No missing dialogue has been invented.

The original mathematical text is unchanged. Authorship and CC-BY-4.0 release were authorized in the current conversation. Existing historical review attribution is recorded as supplied, not independently authenticated. No full experiment reproduction, formal verification, or new external-source audit is claimed.