SOURCE_DIGEST: c6b42ff18bb4f4d35f1c591b89c9317f0f72b213c103f90f939c20682771561f

### Review Findings

**1. Distinction Between Design and Implementation (No Overclaiming)**
The manuscript is exceptionally rigorous in separating the proposed design from current implementation. The Abstract, Section 1.1, and Section 2.3 accurately and repeatedly assert the absence of an `apps/mdreader` implementation. Section 17 explicitly lists exact nonclaims regarding the UI, backend, and API. By framing the contribution as a "falsifiable application contract" (Section 1.2), the manuscript completely avoids the overclaiming trap common in architectural proposals.

**2. Accuracy of Historical vs. Current Evidence (Section 2.2 & Appendix A)**
The manuscript perfectly captures the repository's fixture evidence evolution. It accurately attributes the accepted Slice 4 release to a closed corpus of 33 cases (29 semantic, 4 structural, 0 disagreements) and correctly distinguishes this from the current, unreviewed working tree reporting 42 cases. The math and rationale align perfectly, attributing the 9 additional structural comparisons to unreviewed Slice 5 candidate fixtures.

**3. Dependency Status Accuracy (Section 2.4 & Table 3)**
The paper's dependency ledger accurately reflects the program's state. Papers 3 and 4 are properly classified as internally accepted manuscripts. Crucially, Paper 15 is accurately stated in the text as "unaccepted" and labeled in Table 3 as a "provisional paper." This properly prevents the manuscript from relying on unaccepted upstream capabilities.

**4. Security, Accessibility, and General Nonclaims (Sections 14.4, 15.2, & 17)**
The manuscript correctly treats accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA) and security (multi-tenant isolation, authorization) as evaluation protocols to be satisfied in the future rather than current capabilities. Section 17 explicitly disclaims production scale, security, privacy, and accessibility at the audited revision, which demonstrates strong technical maturity. 

**5. Reproducibility and Falsifiability (Section 16 & Appendix A)**
Providing 20 explicit falsifiers (Section 16) and a detailed appendix of audit commands (Appendix A) creates an ironclad standard for future work. The inclusion of a proposed native acceptance matrix (Table 4) ensures the roadmap to a result-bearing paper (Section 19) is clear and executable.

**6. Formatting and Readability**
The manuscript is well-structured, follows arXiv-style standards, and uses LaTeX appropriately. The citations and bibliographic references are accurate and correctly contextualize the work within functorial data migration, provenance, and retrieval fields. 

No unresolved major or minor issues remain. The manuscript flawlessly satisfies the constraints of an independent adversarial audit.

VERDICT: ACCEPT