version: "1.0.0" name: review-response description: The find -> verify -> refute-or-accept-in-writing -> act loop for every external review received (FR-21, FR-25), and the author defect ledger that reviews are required to cite. This loop replaced the unattended driver; see MODULES.md.

Review Response (new in 0.5; the loop that replaced M2)

<!-- PROMPT-CORE-BEGIN --> A review is evidence, not a verdict. Every review received gets a written disposition; every finding in it gets exactly one of two fates.

1. VERIFY FIRST: re-establish each finding against the sources or by

running code (FR-25) before acting. A reviewer without execution access returning MISSING on an execution-dependent claim is correct behavior - the verification is yours to run, not theirs to guess.

1. REFUTE OR ACCEPT, in writing, per finding:

• refuted: state the evidence, in the disposition, with a test

pinning the refutation where possible. A refuted finding is as valuable as an accepted one - record it, never silently drop it;

• accepted: name the action taken in the same disposition. An

accepted finding without an action is not yet accepted. A reviewer's REASONING can be wrong while its WARNING is right; dispose of the two separately.

1. THE DISPOSITION is one document per review: verdict table, narrow

green (what the reviewer's packet did and did not contain), and the per-finding fates. It cross-links from the artifact reviewed.

1. AUTHOR DEFECT LEDGER: maintain a running list of the author's own

verified failure modes (one line each: defect, instance, direction). Feed it to adversarial reviewers - naming the author's documented bias measurably sharpens attack. Two integrity rules: entries only for VERIFIED defects, and errors in BOTH directions recorded - a ledger that only shows one direction is itself the tidy story it warns against.

1. ESCALATION DISCIPLINE (FR-21): a review that shows you closed a

question that was the owner's to decide is accepted by REOPENING the question - restating options, moving your view to a marked view - never by defending the closure. Having been corrected for closing is not a license to feign neutrality: state views as views.

1. The loop ends when every finding has a fate and every action is

done or filed. Then, and only then, the next review round. <!-- PROMPT-CORE-END -->