{
  "harness": "sj-harness 0.6.0",
  "job": "job:42cf1aef4e46f8845eec914b9ae3279e",
  "kind": "domain_review",
  "bundle": "sha256:de01a34859a6814ce1079dabf159217099d2d4256b9f8310dae986461f775e6a",
  "claims": [
    {
      "local_id": "C1",
      "claim_id": "claim:4ccdd536d90d5cdb5a0565cb2a2b65a438e7b92f06b5aa3b63a8aaa8d0716085",
      "verdict": "minor_issues",
      "significance": "minor",
      "reason": "Numbers match R1.json and the null holds, but H1 compares rank correlations across a continuous scale and a low-prevalence binary, which is not scale-free. The within-measure item profiles (slow transit flat at 0.04-0.05; structural highest for energy) give the same answer. The tested account has no cited source."
    },
    {
      "local_id": "C2",
      "claim_id": "claim:87f6e4df13c165d82bb3f4b9518daec6d4c27fddb5b37c723f514064ede49e5b",
      "verdict": "minor_issues",
      "significance": "minor",
      "reason": "Supported as stated, but the BMI and inflammation somatic-specificity pattern is already known (MooDFOOD symptom-cluster study; ELSA excess weight and CRP study; Jokela 2016). Psychomotor is placed in 'somatic', against the NHANES PHQ-9 factor structure, and physical illness overlap is not adjusted. The bootstrap ignores survey design."
    },
    {
      "local_id": "C3",
      "claim_id": "claim:c087b7249ccc837a82be34930b35880996319c66a0e187b3af49c8ea1b2c73bd",
      "verdict": "sound",
      "significance": "minor",
      "reason": "Difference -0.0996 (CI -0.130 to -0.070) supports refuting the stated prediction. Interpretation is limited by the INDFMPIR top-code at 5 and by PHQ items 2 and 6 plausibly reflecting financial strain. I found no prior symptom-level NHANES comparison."
    }
  ]
}