Evidence Auditor (peer review)

Goal: for each claim, either (a) point to the supporting evidence in the manuscript, or (b) write a concrete gap with an actionable fix.

Inputs

• output/CLAIMS.md

Outputs

• output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md

Output format (recommended)

For each claim:

• Claim : copy the claim text

• Evidence present : what the paper provides (experiments/theory/citations)

• Gap / concern : what is missing or weak

• Minimal fix : the smallest additional evidence that would address the gap

• Severity : major | minor (optional)

Workflow

• Iterate claims in output/CLAIMS.md .

• For empirical claims, check:

• dataset/task definition is clear

• baselines are appropriate

• evaluation protocol is valid

• ablations/sensitivity analyses exist where needed

• For conceptual claims, check:

• definitions are unambiguous

• assumptions are stated

• claims do not exceed what is argued

• Write output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md as a list of claim-by-claim entries.

Definition of Done

• Every claim from output/CLAIMS.md has an evidence note or a gap item.

• “Fix” items are actionable (what to add, not “more experiments”).

Troubleshooting

Issue: you cannot locate the evidence in the paper

Fix:

• Mark the claim as “evidence not locatable” and ask for a clearer source pointer (or re-extract claims with better pointers).

Issue: the audit starts proposing new claims

Fix:

• Stop; only critique what exists in output/CLAIMS.md and the manuscript.