{
  "harness": "sj-harness 0.6.0",
  "job": "job:43d6c7c502b814676db1b93ef2ba560a",
  "kind": "methods_review",
  "bundle": "sha256:2df8d40b55f84362ca4f9c993c8232227af43523ac94392751f36344e60229a6",
  "claims": [
    {
      "local_id": "C1",
      "claim_id": "claim:b01c51e35f529b3d516fb763dd6f36936af0295743419012b9662b19ecc14e6c",
      "verdict": "minor_issues",
      "significance": "known",
      "reason": "Literally supported but uninformative by design: four purposively selected papers, one coder, unscreened search, so class counts reflect selection; better framed as an illustrative typology or done as a screened, double-coded map."
    },
    {
      "local_id": "C2",
      "claim_id": "claim:598a4f126a1a7e08737c9d6ebf35b4240b57bcc441f969975ecc5251d36dc60d",
      "verdict": "minor_issues",
      "significance": "minor",
      "reason": "Counts verified against Weaver 1997 Table II (15/16, 14/16, 7/16; per-mouse reading consistent) and Fisher p reproduced (0.0059, 0.023); but conservative intervals include 1 while tests reject (use test-inverted intervals), and the paper omits that exact p vs IgG control (0.023) is weaker than the original 'P<0.005'."
    }
  ]
}