Investigation peer-review assessment

Peer review should make a report more inspectable, not reward its most confident narrative. A polished dossier can still hide an unsupported identity bridge or a missing source.

Review four layers independently: scope, saved records, transformations and conclusions. Re-run calculations from raw integers, check identifiers against the named network, and trace each material claim to a locator. A broken source link is a reproducibility defect even when the claim may be true. A fully reproducible graph can still be insufficient for human attribution. Neither defect is repaired by visual polish.

Write a finding for each contested sentence: supporting record, exact operation, evidence state, competing interpretation and requested correction. Prefer narrow amendments to blanket verdicts. If a receipt proves a transfer but no control bridge exists, preserve the transfer observation and remove the named-controller conclusion. Record irreducible gaps rather than asking the author to conceal them.

A Diagnostic Passport is a bounded snapshot context, not a certificate of investment suitability, fraud or identity. Review date and source observation date must remain separate. This assessment does not create a real Passport or any certification runtime. The reviewer’s role is to test whether another reader can reproduce what the dossier actually claims.

Reproducibility defect: missing locator, bytes or method required to repeat a result.

Evidence defect: a conclusion exceeds what the available records support.

Review finding: precise correction with supporting rationale.

ILLUSTRATIVE report R says: “A sent 40units to B; therefore A and B are one owner, and B is safe.” The saved fictional receipt supports40units but R omits its block from the source table. A graph caption equates shared counterparty with shared controller. The reviewer has no identity or safety assessment evidence.

Peer-review evidence panel with columns sentence, source, transformation, boundary and correction. Retain the 40-unit observation; flag identity and safety as insufficiently evidenced, with no fraud score.

Caption: Fictional peer review audits claim boundaries rather than issuing a safety certificate.

SPECIFICATION_ONLY — the rendered visual has not been produced or independently reviewed.

The stipulated receipt supports a 40-unit transfer. The review can identify the missing block locator and two unsupported extensions without denying the underlying transfer.

It does not prove identity, benign intent, global safety or a genuine ZECOIN Passport. An editorial correction is not new chain evidence.

Accepting the whole report because arithmetic is right; rejecting every observation because one conclusion is wrong; treating a Passport badge as a guarantee; replacing critique with accusations about the author.

Produce three review findings for R. Separate a reproducibility correction from evidence-boundary corrections, then draft an acceptable revised conclusion and a remaining-evidence request.

• Re-run compatible-unit calculations.
• Trace every material conclusion to a locator.
• Separate missing reproducibility from overclaiming.
• Preserve valid narrow observations while correcting unsupported extensions.

Good peer review preserves supported observations and makes unsupported extensions and reproducibility gaps explicit.

• Correct arithmetic does not validate attribution.
• A missing locator and an excessive conclusion are different findings.
• Review does not manufacture evidence or certification.

Program complete; no new runtime, certification or financial action is implied.

Use the named ZECOIN tool only as an evidence-reading context. This lesson creates no tool output, account session or entitlement. Offline exercise; do not sign, deploy, approve or fund anything.

• BTC: Bitcoin developer guide — transactions — Input references identify previous transaction outputs; scripts do not identify a human. Boundary: Mechanism documentation only; original illustrative values are stipulated, not observations. Historical records have separately frozen provenance and explicit collection gaps.
• API: Esplora public API specification — GET routes, integer satoshis and indexed confirmation/outspend fields. Boundary: Mechanism documentation only; original illustrative values are stipulated, not observations. Historical records have separately frozen provenance and explicit collection gaps.

ILLUSTRATIVE — entirely fictional offline inputs; no current observation.

null — no real observation

1

null

needs_review