Review records for the Problem 18 reconstructions

../

doorn_corollary_3_4_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Corollary 3.4 reconstruction: source fidelity faithful and the argument sound; zero required corrections, one suggested labeling change and two notes.

doorn_lemma_3_1_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 3.1 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the source and the reconstructed argument is sound, with zero required corrections (one suggested labeling and three notes).

doorn_lemma_3_2_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 3.2 reconstruction as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: statement, locators and proof faithful and the argument sound, with one required correction to a Source-paragraph sentence that attributes to the note a framing the note does not contain.

doorn_lemma_3_3_reconstruction_review: Source fidelity faithful with corrections and the reconstructed averaging argument sound at every step; one required correction, in the Qualifications bullet that understates the prime-count lower bound the argument consumes, plus one suggestion and two notes.

doorn_proposition_4_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged review of the Proposition 4.1 reconstruction: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound conditional on its imported claimed lemmas; zero required corrections, two suggested, three notes.

doorn_theorem_1_1_reconstruction_review: Faithful to the source and sound as reconstructed, with no required corrections; one suggested label for the supplied deduction and four notes.

grade: Distinct grader's check of the ten focused reviews of the Problem 18 reconstruction pages as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: all ten reports pass as focused review records, five corrections are accepted, the other findings are downgraded or rejected with reasons, and no tier is assigned.

hughes_corollary_3_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Corollary 3 reconstruction: statement and argument are faithful to the source and sound; one required correction, a missing supplied-step label on the monotonicity derivation.

hughes_lemma_4_reconstruction_review: Focused independent review of the Lemma 4 reconstruction as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful with corrections, one required correction (an unlabeled extension of the source's consequence clause), and the argument as reconstructed is sound.

hughes_remark_6_reconstruction_review: Refutation-style review of the Remark 6 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the source and the argument is sound, with no required corrections, three suggested ones and two notes.

hughes_theorem_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged review of the Theorem 1 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the source and the reconstructed argument is sound; zero required corrections, three suggested changes and two notes.

---

The records here are the independent focused reviews of each reconstruction page of the Problem 18 research folder as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z, one report per page, each written in a fresh context by a reviewer who took no part in writing the pages and was charged with refutation, and one distinct grade (grade) by a grader distinct from the author and from the reviewers, which records pass or void for each report, the accepted corrections C1 to C5, and the graded fidelity and argument verdict of each page. Every record is a focused review of an author-recorded reconstruction: none is a whole-claim review, none assigns a tier, and none changes the status of Problem 18 or of any source result.