Reconstruction reviews and grade

../

fan_remark_4_1_reconstruction_review: Source fidelity faithful with corrections and the reconstructed argument sound: the base-two example is verified against the held PDF, with two required corrections, both to the page's account of the source (the version claim about v4 is false, and the source's printed slip in the per-interval count is not recorded).

fan_remark_4_2_reconstruction_review: The reconstruction of Fan's Remark 4.2 is faithful to the held v5 PDF and its argument is sound; no required corrections, three suggested edits and two notes.

geneson_corollary_12_reconstruction_review: Refutation review of the Corollary 12 reconstruction as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful with corrections (one required, one suggested), the reconstructed argument sound at every step; no tier assigned.

geneson_theorem_9_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Theorem 9 reconstruction as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the argument as reconstructed sound, with zero required corrections (three suggested, three notes).

grade: Grades the fourteen focused reviews of the Problem 354 reconstruction pages as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: all fourteen pass; ten corrections, C1--C10, are accepted after adjudication against the held sources; every page is graded faithful and sound, several with corrections; no tier is assigned.

yu_chen_bg_reconstruction_review: Refutation-failed: the bounded-spacing reconstruction is faithful to Section 11 of the held manuscript and its argument is sound; zero required corrections, two suggested corrections and five notes.

yu_chen_db_reconstruction_review: The reconstruction of Section 9 is faithful to the source at physical pp. 10--11 and its argument is sound as written; zero required corrections, with two suggested edits and three notes.

yu_chen_fe_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charge review of the finite-event decay reconstruction: the statement is faithful to Section 8 of the held manuscript and the argument is sound; no required corrections, one suggested wording change and three notes.

yu_chen_lemma_2_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charge review of the Lemma 2.1 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the source and the reconstructed argument is sound, with zero required corrections (two suggested clarifications and two notes).

yu_chen_lemma_2_2_reconstruction_review: Faithful with corrections and sound as reconstructed: the lemma, its display and its locators match physical p. 3 exactly; no required corrections, two suggested labels on the consequence's added hypothesis and added conclusions.

yu_chen_lemma_2_3_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 2.3 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the held manuscript and the argument is sound, with zero required corrections, two suggested clarifications and three notes.

yu_chen_normalization_reconstruction_review: Faithful to the source at the stated pages and labels, and sound as reconstructed: every deduction re-derived, zero required corrections, one suggested labeling improvement and four notes.

yu_chen_theorem_5_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charge review of the Theorem 5.1 reconstruction as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with zero required corrections, four suggested clarifications and one note.

yu_chen_theorem_reconstruction_review: Fresh-context refutation review of the theorem assembly page: the statement and its locators are faithful to the held manuscript and the reconstructed argument is sound; zero required corrections, one suggested labeling change and three notes.

yu_chen_windows_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Section 10 windows reconstruction against the held manuscript: source fidelity faithful, the reconstructed argument sound, no required corrections, one suggested labeling change and three notes.

---

These records are the independent focused reviews of the fourteen reconstruction pages of the Problem 354 reconstruction folder as of 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z, one report per page under a refutation charge, each by a reviewer in a fresh context who checked the page's statement and essential deductions against the held source and took the page's input pages at their Statement sections. The distinct grade, by a grader separate from the author and from every reviewer, records pass for each of the fourteen reports, adjudicates every finding against the sources and the pages, and lists the accepted corrections C1--C10 with their exact replacements. No record here assigns a tier or changes a status: the pages remain author-recorded reconstructions.