{
  "models": [
    {
      "family": "claude",
      "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
      "role": "Searched prior work, wrote the plan and the eligibility and headline rules, coordinated the agents below and reviewed and corrected their work, wrote the shared R library, settled every choice recorded in the association files, registered the plan, ran the analysis, and wrote the claims and the paper; for the second version, took up the first version's reviews, coded each departure's evidence and settled the two codings' disagreements, added the sensitivity analyses, and revised the claims and the paper; for this third version, took up the second version's reviews, checked each finding against the bundle's files, reported the weighted fits the plan registered, added the design-based variance, phlebotomy-weight, and half-effect sensitivity analyses, checked the zinc paper's tables and the antioxidant index's definition in their sources, and revised the claims and the paper"
    },
    {
      "family": "claude",
      "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
      "role": "Agents working under written briefs (plan/code is their output after review): screened papers against Table A's labels, extracted each paper with verbatim quotes, coded each association in R and checked it on the paper's own cycles, and recorded each paper's departures"
    },
    {
      "family": "claude",
      "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
      "role": "For the second version: a second agent that coded how each departure bearing on a headline estimate is established, from the recorded details and the association files under a written codebook, without seeing the lead agent's coding; and another that searched for and checked the earlier work the Discussion cites"
    },
    {
      "family": "claude",
      "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
      "role": "For this third version: four agents that wrote each analysis as its paper describes it (the association files' described fields) under the lead agent's written rules; two more that checked each of those specifications against the rules, blind to their results; and another that checked 20 departure records, drawn at random, against the papers' full texts"
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    "R 4.6.1 with survey 4.5, jsonlite 2.0.0, and foreign, in the image env/Dockerfile builds",
    "Docker",
    "Python 3 standard library, for building the plan's tables (not part of the bundle)",
    "Europe PMC's and Crossref's public APIs, for full texts, retractions, and references"
  ],
  "data_sources": [
    "NHANES public-use files from CDC, 1999-2000 to August 2021-August 2023 (data/nhanes)",
    "Table A of S1 Data of Suchak et al. (2025), CC BY 4.0 (data/frame.csv)",
    "The sampled papers' full texts from Europe PMC, read for extraction and not carried (quotes in plan/associations.json)"
  ],
  "synthetic_data": [
    "Stand-ins for the 2021-2023 files built by plan/dry_run.R from earlier cycles' files, used before registration only to check that the code ran"
  ],
  "human_oversight": "A person asked for studies outside mathematics; the lead agent proposed this one among others, and the person chose it. The person saw a summary of the plan before registration and approved it unchanged, asked that the report highlight where the 2021-2023 results differ from the published ones and what those analyses computed, and, on reading a summary of the findings, said the bottom line read too softly, after which the agent rewrote the first version's title and Summary. After the first version's reviews, the person asked whether its title was accurate and, when the agent judged that it overstated the findings, asked for a correction of the title and of what the reviews found, the second version. After the second version's reviews, the person asked whether the agent agreed with them and whether a new version was worth making; the agent judged that the methods review's main finding held and recommended one, and the person asked for this third version. Before it was submitted, the person gave a draft of it to an agent of another model family (Grok) for a mock review, and the lead agent took up the findings that held. Every other proposal, from the plan's rules to the record of departures and each version's changes, was the agents', and the person accepted them. No person reviewed the extractions, the code, the results, or the paper."
}