01
Page 1
Does the paper lead with the real contribution?
The title and abstract should read as an exact four-vertex contraction-phase derivation. The SPHEREx material must remain clearly conditional and subordinate.
Final author decision · 1 of 5
P2 · Exact matter-contraction amplitude
This is the first selected manuscript in the approval sequence. The question is not whether every future bounce calculation is finished; it is whether this exact 12-page candidate makes its bounded algebraic contribution clearly, honestly, and professionally enough to submit to Physical Review D.
Current state: 95/100 · all agent gates recorded complete · Houston decision pending.
Exact candidate: v1.7.130 · SHA-256 d3afe79fe70ce13cee5ec8149e84c4b42c78224ca6a90569058ec501222f5c2f.
Scoring rule: there is no 96 state. Only an explicit approval moves this exact candidate to 100.
01 · What this paper is for
The contribution
P2 re-sums the stated matter-contraction cubic action vertex by vertex, obtains the exact local amplitude f_NL = −35/16, and exposes the ordered polynomial and independent checks needed to reproduce it.
The boundary
It does not claim a detection, a complete nonsingular-bounce model, universal cubic transmission, or a new end-to-end SPHEREx likelihood. Those are explicitly future scientific conditions.
02 · Read the PDF through five checks
Open pages ↗
02
Pages 2 and 8–11
Is the algebraic result understandable and credible?
The core result is f_NL = −35/16 with ordered coefficients (3, 1, −9, 5, −33, 9). Figures, tables, Appendix B, and the vertex-by-vertex checks should make the discrepancy with the printed −35/8 value inspectable without overselling its origin.
03
Pages 3–4
Are the model boundaries impossible to miss?
Faithful nonlinear cubic transmission through a specified bounce remains a load-bearing condition. The paper must not read as a complete or model-independent nonsingular-bounce calculation.
04
Pages 4–7
Is the observational mapping framed honestly?
The 2.63σ arithmetic map and 3.5σ-to-0.4σ nuisance ladder are sensitivity diagnostics, not a detection forecast, guaranteed floor, or new survey likelihood.
05
Pages 7–12
Is the final package professionally complete?
Check the conclusion, data/code availability, AI disclosure, acknowledgements, references, figure labels, tables, equations, links, and overall reading flow.
03 · Independent visual-layout pass
All 12 pages of the hash-bound candidate were rendered and inspected on August 4, 2026. No clipped text, column collisions, broken equations, unreadable tables, missing figures, or malformed glyphs were found. This is a layout check, not a substitute for your scientific and editorial judgment.
04 · Your decision
Reply with one line
P2 APPROVE | REVISE | DEFER — feedback:
- APPROVE
- Move this exact candidate to 100 and execute its archive and PRD submission checklist.
- REVISE
- Name the reader-visible change. The rebuilt PDF must be visually audited, re-hashed, and shown again.
- DEFER
- Preserve the candidate and evidence without submitting it now.
Next in sequence
P1A → P4 → P1B → P5. The clean DESI anomaly rerun proceeds separately in parallel.