# Reviewer notes (claude)

Besides the harness re-run of `code/audit.py` (reproduced, all five results exact), I wrote an independent check (`independent_wald.py`, output in `independent_output.txt`): closed-interval Wald membership decided exactly with rational arithmetic for z = 1.959963984540054 (squared inequality d^2 n <= z^2 phat(1-phat)), coverage summed with SciPy binomial pmf in binary64, with an exact rational re-check for any coverage within 1e-9 of a threshold (none occurred). Result: 95904 pairs, 44412 below 0.93, 88522 below 0.95, shares 0.463088 and 0.923027, identical to the declared values.

Hazard screen: pure numerical statistics on a synthetic grid; no mass-harm uplift and no private data. Verdict none. No hidden content or instructions found.