{
  "reviewType": "AI-assisted editorial and methodological audit",
  "verificationDate": "2026-10-16",
  "notHumanPeerReview": true,
  "seedAudit": {
    "claimedIdeas": 100,
    "actualIdeas": 80,
    "actualNumberRanges": [
      [
        1,
        40
      ],
      [
        61,
        100
      ]
    ],
    "missingNumberRange": [
      41,
      60
    ],
    "missingDomain": 3,
    "sourceLimitations": "Seed document names media and proposed titles but does not supply the corresponding source URLs, DOIs, dates, or full bibliographic records. Claims about Cheteni's prior projects, affiliations, outcomes, accreditation, partnerships, and priority remain leads rather than independently verified facts."
  },
  "proposedEditorialStandards": [
    {
      "id": "article-type",
      "standard": "Identify each work as conceptual research, critical integrative analysis, a prospective protocol, a reproducible source audit, or completed empirical research. Do not describe targeted literature selection as a systematic review or meta-analysis."
    },
    {
      "id": "human-authority",
      "standard": "Humans retain authorship, interpretive responsibility, editorial decisions, and accountability. AI assistance is disclosed with tasks and limitations. An agent is neither an author nor a human peer reviewer."
    },
    {
      "id": "independent-handling",
      "standard": "Submissions authored by the Editor in Chief require a handling editor with no relevant conflict and an acceptance decision made outside the author-editor's control. Record the actual editor, dates, reviewer expertise, conflicts, reports, and author responses before displaying a human peer-review claim."
    },
    {
      "id": "review-honesty",
      "standard": "A public research edition is citable and readable without being represented as accepted or independently human peer reviewed. AI-assisted methods checks and source audits are labeled separately; no review status is inherited from an earlier article or version."
    },
    {
      "id": "originality",
      "standard": "State the new analytical contribution and the relationship to Cheteni's prior frameworks and the existing Movement Thinking volume. Attributed republications, source collections, and original articles have separate publication identities. Do not relabel republished source research as new Cheteni-authored primary research."
    },
    {
      "id": "evidence-boundary",
      "standard": "Distinguish what cited studies actually establish, limitations of their populations and designs, conceptual interpretations, and untested hypotheses. Movement Thinking and Design Realization Garages are proposed frameworks unless a named validation study supports a narrower claim."
    },
    {
      "id": "citation-integrity",
      "standard": "Use verified author, title, venue, year and identifier metadata; provide authoritative URLs and claim-level evidence notes. A DOI resolving is not evidence that the study supports every surrounding claim. Correct versions, retractions and substantive updates must remain traceable."
    },
    {
      "id": "protocol-quality",
      "standard": "Prospective protocols prespecify the population, recruitment, assignment unit, intervention, comparator, estimand, one primary outcome, assessment timing, power or precision rationale, missing-data strategy, contamination, deviations, harms and analysis. Do not present planned enrollment as achieved or a future preregistration as completed."
    },
    {
      "id": "child-protection",
      "standard": "Before recruiting children obtain the applicable ethics determination, guardian permission and child assent where required, with genuine nonparticipation alternatives and accessible routes. Minimize identifiable data and biometric collection; no school or teacher pressure may substitute for consent."
    },
    {
      "id": "openness",
      "standard": "Disclose funding, conflicts, AI tasks, data availability, code availability, protocol status and limitations. Publish null, negative and adverse outcomes alongside positive ones. Open artifacts should not expose student identities or imply that licensed source material licenses personal data."
    },
    {
      "id": "correction-versioning",
      "standard": "Use actual publication dates and immutable version identifiers; retain corrections, review status changes and links between protocols and results. Do not create or claim registered DOIs until registration is real and the publisher has the appropriate authority."
    },
    {
      "id": "agent-quality",
      "standard": "Agents cite the current article passages and accurately separate framework, source evidence and proposed study. They abstain beyond their source; evaluation includes false premises and requests for nonexistent findings. Retrieval quality does not validate a research framework."
    }
  ],
  "seedSpecificCorrections": [
    "The seed's 258 million out-of-school estimate must not be presented as current without a dated authoritative source.",
    "Headset novelty, presence, engagement, startup counts, patents and publication counts are not equivalent to demonstrated learning transfer.",
    "Do not claim zero-error AI tutoring, validated emotion recognition, or educational need for neuroimaging without specific evidence.",
    "Participant double blinding is usually impossible for visible XR or robot interventions; blind outcome assessors and analysts where feasible and document the limits.",
    "Robot autonomy must not imply the removal of accountable human supervision in K–12 settings.",
    "Do not claim Stanford endorsement, an institutional affiliation, or an established publication reputation from a source-hosting relationship."
  ],
  "guidanceSources": [
    {
      "organization": "COPE",
      "title": "Authorship and AI tools",
      "url": "https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools",
      "verified": "Official search result confirmed authors remain responsible; direct page fetch blocked (403)."
    },
    {
      "organization": "COPE",
      "title": "Editors submitting articles to their own journal",
      "url": "https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/editors-submitting-articles-their-own-journal",
      "verified": "Official search result dated 2024-08-20 addresses independently handled review; direct page fetch blocked."
    },
    {
      "organization": "AERA",
      "title": "Standards for Research Conduct",
      "url": "https://www.aera.net/Publications/Standards-for-Research-Conduct",
      "verified": "Official page accessed; empirical and humanities-oriented standards are separately identified."
    },
    {
      "organization": "PRISMA",
      "title": "PRISMA 2020 checklist",
      "url": "https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist",
      "verified": "Official checklist page accessed; reporting checklist is not evidence that a review was performed."
    },
    {
      "organization": "Center for Open Science",
      "title": "Preregistration",
      "url": "https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg",
      "verified": "Official page accessed; planned confirmatory and exploratory analysis must be distinguished and results selectively reported must be avoided."
    },
    {
      "organization": "HHS Office for Human Research Protections",
      "title": "45 CFR 46 Subpart D: Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research",
      "url": "https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/common-rule-subpart-d/index.html",
      "verified": "Official regulatory page accessed. Applicability and any exemptions/waivers require the appropriate determination; assent is affirmative agreement rather than failure to object."
    },
    {
      "organization": "SPIRIT-CONSORT",
      "title": "SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomized trials",
      "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03668-w",
      "verified": "Primary statement accessed, 34-item minimum protocol reporting checklist. Clinical-trial guidance can inform educational protocol completeness but is not claimed as an accreditation or a direct requirement for every education study."
    }
  ],
  "manuscriptAudits": [
    {
      "manuscript": "spatial",
      "path": "/press/designership/provenance/spatial-reviewed-source.json",
      "sha256AtReview": "6872c1a02a247ebba7f522140339227acf03226666f78bb243a1b61a8e34c841",
      "reviewType": "AI-assisted claim, citation and methodological review",
      "disposition": "Requested corrections resolved; suitable as an honestly labeled critical integrative analysis and prospective protocol, subject to actual author approval and independent human review for any peer-reviewed acceptance claim",
      "strengths": [
        "Accurate critical-integrative and prospective-protocol classification",
        "Primary source R5 high-school VR/enactment paraphrase checked against University of Copenhagen author-institution abstract",
        "Resource- and time-matched comparator",
        "Delayed physical transfer primary outcome; masked assessors",
        "Accessible routes and choice distinguished from randomized treatment",
        "Ethics and registration not claimed; child protections and adverse experiences addressed",
        "ITT, cluster attrition, power planning and missing-data uncertainty disclosed"
      ],
      "correctionsRequested": [
        {
          "id": "spatial-reference-group",
          "detail": "Remove duplicate CONSORT Group attribution in R9",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "spatial-estimand-weights",
          "detail": "Specify weighting and cluster-size handling needed to estimate the stated student-average estimand, including sensitivity to informative cluster size",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        }
      ],
      "sourceChecks": [
        {
          "url": "https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/en/publications/immersive-virtual-reality-increases-liking-but-not-learning-with-/",
          "support": "Source abstract reports high-school experiments, no unconditional VR learning advantage, and enactment benefits within immersive condition."
        }
      ],
      "limits": "Not exhaustive independent full-text verification of all citations, not plagiarism detection, and not independent human peer review. Protocol remains prospective: measures, power, site agreements, ethics determination and preregistration are pre-enrollment requirements.",
      "sha256AfterRevision": "6872c1a02a247ebba7f522140339227acf03226666f78bb243a1b61a8e34c841",
      "title": "From Virtual Presence to Physical Competence: Consequence-Preserving Transfer in K–12 Spatial STEM",
      "slug": "virtual-presence-physical-competence",
      "bodyWordsWhitespaceSplit": 3501,
      "references": 10,
      "articleType": "Critical integrative analysis and prospective research protocol",
      "status": "AI-assisted editorial corrections resolved; public research edition with independent human review not yet documented",
      "remainingUnresolvedItems": [
        "Actual final human author approval and independent handling/review decision have not been documented in this AI-assisted audit.",
        "No trial recruitment, ethics approval, completed registration, data collection or empirical findings exist in this prospective article.",
        "Before a study begins, investigators must finalize and register the operational protocol, measurements, power/precision plan, sites, resources, data protections and applicable ethics determination.",
        "Citation checks in this audit are targeted. No exhaustive full-text appraisal, plagiarism clearance, or complete correction/retraction clearance is claimed."
      ],
      "humanPeerReview": "Not performed or claimed",
      "retractionStatus": "Not exhaustively cleared; targeted source/metadata checks and a linked PNAS correction do not constitute comprehensive retraction surveillance."
    },
    {
      "manuscript": "robots",
      "path": "/press/designership/provenance/robots-reviewed-source.json",
      "sha256AtReview": "6b4bd4b124f1ef85d2e04ec675530399460d1f3cfb7944f2615a40fa29d03a9c",
      "reviewType": "AI-assisted claim, citation and methodological review",
      "disposition": "No unsupported efficacy or completed-trial claim found. Governance matrix is explicitly proposed, primary literature populations bounded, child safeguards and delayed unaided transfer are central.",
      "correctionsRequested": [
        {
          "id": "robots-equivalence",
          "detail": "Do not infer comparable outcomes from nonsignificant superiority; require prespecified equivalence/noninferiority margin and precision",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "robots-estimand",
          "detail": "Student-average ITT requires prespecified weighting with unequal school sizes",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "robots-correction",
          "detail": "Explain PNAS linked correction changes affiliation due production error, not findings",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        }
      ],
      "sourceChecks": [
        {
          "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178126",
          "support": "Primary two-classroom study; teachers remained present; limited generalization acknowledged"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2518204122",
          "support": "Correction addresses Osbert Bastani affiliation, not study outcomes"
        }
      ],
      "limits": "Not an exhaustive independent full-text verification of all citations or plagiarism check; not independent human peer review. All human-subject procedures and findings remain prospective.",
      "title": "Who Holds the Classroom? Bounded Pedagogical Autonomy for Social Robots and AI Agents in K–12 Education",
      "slug": "bounded-pedagogical-autonomy-classroom-agents",
      "sha256AfterRevision": "6b4bd4b124f1ef85d2e04ec675530399460d1f3cfb7944f2615a40fa29d03a9c",
      "bodyWordsWhitespaceSplit": 3811,
      "references": 14,
      "articleType": "Critical integrative analysis and prospective field-study protocol",
      "status": "AI-assisted editorial corrections resolved; public research edition with independent human review not yet documented",
      "remainingUnresolvedItems": [
        "Actual final human author approval and independent handling/review decision have not been documented in this AI-assisted audit.",
        "No trial recruitment, ethics approval, completed registration, data collection or empirical findings exist in this prospective article.",
        "Before a study begins, investigators must finalize and register the operational protocol, measurements, power/precision plan, sites, resources, data protections and applicable ethics determination.",
        "Citation checks in this audit are targeted. No exhaustive full-text appraisal, plagiarism clearance, or complete correction/retraction clearance is claimed.",
        "A superiority design cannot establish equivalence; any equivalence or noninferiority claim requires its own margin, precision rationale and prospective plan."
      ],
      "humanPeerReview": "Not performed or claimed",
      "retractionStatus": "Not exhaustively cleared; targeted source/metadata checks and a linked PNAS correction do not constitute comprehensive retraction surveillance."
    },
    {
      "manuscript": "equity",
      "path": "/press/designership/provenance/equity-reviewed-source.json",
      "sha256AtReview": "5109a8dc93fd514a77efd5226a78474b6841c7f458284b5693d91996478f10a8",
      "reviewType": "AI-assisted claim, citation and methodological review",
      "disposition": "Core framework is appropriately normative and testable, official guidance is not treated as legal clearance or intervention validation. Initial cohort/timing problem corrected through a concurrent matched-pair parallel delayed-start design.",
      "correctionsRequested": [
        {
          "id": "equity-cohort",
          "detail": "Resolve five-term stepped-wedge, twelve-week module and baseline cohort ambiguity",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "equity-ethics",
          "detail": "State independent ethics determination before recruitment and guardian permission/assent or approved legal alternative",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "equity-participation",
          "detail": "Define common curricular milestones/participation denominator across arms",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        }
      ],
      "sourceChecks": [
        {
          "url": "https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20150385",
          "support": "Journal version reports318 schools and no evidence of math/language test-score effects"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/REC-WCAG22-20241212/",
          "support": "Exact dated Recommendation, testable criteria and acknowledged user-need limits"
        }
      ],
      "limits": "Not an exhaustive independent full-text verification of all citations or plagiarism check; not independent human peer review. All human-subject procedures and findings remain prospective.",
      "title": "A School Must Be Reachable: Digital Infrastructure, Accessible Opportunity, and the Designership Service Obligation",
      "slug": "reachable-school-infrastructure-equity",
      "sha256AfterRevision": "030dcf5664cd905074a909651740dc1420bd0805efb7d312b1db5954424782a3",
      "bodyWordsWhitespaceSplit": 3680,
      "references": 16,
      "articleType": "Evidence-informed policy analysis and prospective comparative implementation protocol",
      "status": "AI-assisted editorial corrections resolved; public research edition with independent human review not yet documented",
      "remainingUnresolvedItems": [
        "Actual final human author approval and independent handling/review decision have not been documented in this AI-assisted audit.",
        "No trial recruitment, ethics approval, completed registration, data collection or empirical findings exist in this prospective article.",
        "Before a study begins, investigators must finalize and register the operational protocol, measurements, power/precision plan, sites, resources, data protections and applicable ethics determination.",
        "Citation checks in this audit are targeted. No exhaustive full-text appraisal, plagiarism clearance, or complete correction/retraction clearance is claimed.",
        "The matched-adoption fallback is a distinct proposed design requiring new timeline and prospective registration; it cannot replace randomization after outcome inspection."
      ],
      "humanPeerReview": "Not performed or claimed",
      "retractionStatus": "Not exhaustively cleared; targeted source/metadata checks and a linked PNAS correction do not constitute comprehensive retraction surveillance."
    },
    {
      "manuscript": "provenance",
      "path": "/press/designership/provenance/provenance-reviewed-source.json",
      "sha256AtReview": "7f8a14f3de55ff2d62bd75cbfcd03ae044b8244490d41239d81a1d4383ccb98f",
      "reviewType": "AI-assisted claim, citation and methodological review",
      "disposition": "Novel proposed claim–evidence–contribution ledger clearly separates authorship, authentication, rights and evidential support; benchmark and paired feasibility study remain prospective.",
      "correctionsRequested": [
        {
          "id": "provenance-estimand",
          "detail": "Clarify student-average versus class-average and unequal class-size weights",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "provenance-rubric",
          "detail": "Four-point rubric conflicts with0–4 scoring; use five-level wording",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "provenance-primary",
          "detail": "Explicitly state ledger-vs-citation-only primary technical contrast and utility guardrail",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        }
      ],
      "sourceChecks": [
        {
          "url": "https://info.orcid.org/documentation/collecting-and-sharing-orcid-ids/",
          "support": "OAuth-authenticated association; not authorship or validity proof"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.398/",
          "support": "ALCE evaluates fluency, correctness and citation quality; limited benchmark claim accurate"
        }
      ],
      "limits": "Not an exhaustive independent full-text verification of all citations or plagiarism check; not independent human peer review. All human-subject procedures and findings remain prospective.",
      "title": "From Paper Agents to Accountable Student Scholarship: A Claim–Evidence–Contribution Ledger for K–12 Research",
      "slug": "accountable-student-scholarship-paper-agents",
      "sha256AfterRevision": "9698be671aa36f594b1a79895467cfc2d699720e6af2c6589b726664616a5b7a",
      "bodyWordsWhitespaceSplit": 3776,
      "references": 16,
      "articleType": "Original critical integrative analysis and prospective evaluation protocol",
      "status": "AI-assisted editorial corrections resolved; public research edition with independent human review not yet documented",
      "remainingUnresolvedItems": [
        "Actual final human author approval and independent handling/review decision have not been documented in this AI-assisted audit.",
        "No trial recruitment, ethics approval, completed registration, data collection or empirical findings exist in this prospective article.",
        "Before a study begins, investigators must finalize and register the operational protocol, measurements, power/precision plan, sites, resources, data protections and applicable ethics determination.",
        "Citation checks in this audit are targeted. No exhaustive full-text appraisal, plagiarism clearance, or complete correction/retraction clearance is claimed.",
        "The600-item benchmark and24-class feasibility evaluation have not been assembled or executed; proposed utility/safeguarding thresholds require actual institutional adoption before testing."
      ],
      "humanPeerReview": "Not performed or claimed",
      "retractionStatus": "Not exhaustively cleared; targeted source/metadata checks and a linked PNAS correction do not constitute comprehensive retraction surveillance."
    },
    {
      "manuscript": "mentorship",
      "path": "/press/designership/provenance/mentorship-reviewed-source.json",
      "sha256AtReview": "c94fe0c4004ef2d8e974b0c8db8dd6e26d1b70b7985d1fb35859b706359a0982",
      "reviewType": "AI-assisted claim, citation and methodological review",
      "disposition": "Original public-contribution framework, non-prestige learning criteria and ethical optional public release; prospective cohort trial is appropriately bounded.",
      "correctionsRequested": [
        {
          "id": "mentorship-estimand",
          "detail": "Prespecify weights for student-average estimand and unequal cohort sizes",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "mentorship-mentors",
          "detail": "Establish mentor pool and balance/randomize team allocation to avoid selective expertise differences",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        },
        {
          "id": "mentorship-regyear",
          "detail": "Use undated official regulatory source/access date rather than2026 access year as publication year",
          "status": "resolved in reviewed final source revision"
        }
      ],
      "sourceChecks": [],
      "limits": "Not an exhaustive independent full-text verification of all citations or plagiarism check; not independent human peer review. All human-subject procedures and findings remain prospective.",
      "title": "Public Contribution Without Prestige Proxies: Designership as a Mentored Inquiry Pathway in K–12 Education",
      "slug": "designership-public-contribution-mentored-inquiry",
      "sha256AfterRevision": "c94fe0c4004ef2d8e974b0c8db8dd6e26d1b70b7985d1fb35859b706359a0982",
      "bodyWordsWhitespaceSplit": 3984,
      "references": 14,
      "articleType": "Integrative conceptual analysis and prospective evaluation protocol",
      "status": "AI-assisted editorial corrections resolved; public research edition with independent human review not yet documented",
      "remainingUnresolvedItems": [
        "Actual final human author approval and independent handling/review decision have not been documented in this AI-assisted audit.",
        "No trial recruitment, ethics approval, completed registration, data collection or empirical findings exist in this prospective article.",
        "Before a study begins, investigators must finalize and register the operational protocol, measurements, power/precision plan, sites, resources, data protections and applicable ethics determination.",
        "Citation checks in this audit are targeted. No exhaustive full-text appraisal, plagiarism clearance, or complete correction/retraction clearance is claimed."
      ],
      "humanPeerReview": "Not performed or claimed",
      "retractionStatus": "Not exhaustively cleared; targeted source/metadata checks and a linked PNAS correction do not constitute comprehensive retraction surveillance."
    }
  ],
  "humanReviewStatus": "No new independent human peer review performed or claimed in this audit.",
  "proposedHumanReviewRecord": {
    "versionId": "Required: exact reviewed manuscript version and checksum",
    "handlingEditor": "Required: named human editor independent of the author and publisher conflicts",
    "reviewers": "Recommended: at least one domain expert and one methods expert; actual identities/anonymous identifiers and conflicts recorded",
    "assessmentDomains": [
      "Novelty beyond prior and companion works",
      "Claim-level support and citation accuracy",
      "Theory differentiation and falsifiability",
      "Design, estimand, comparator and outcomes",
      "Analysis and measurement validity",
      "Ethics, child protection and equity",
      "Reproducibility and limitations",
      "Clarity, practical use and non-exaggerated conclusions"
    ],
    "recommendationOptions": [
      "Major revision",
      "Minor revision",
      "Accept",
      "Reject"
    ],
    "decisionRequirements": [
      "Human-authored review reports and dates",
      "Author response for each substantive issue",
      "Editor determination and date",
      "Change log for revisions",
      "Ethics and data-access readiness before any enrollment",
      "Accurate public status; no AI audit represented as human review"
    ]
  },
  "issueAssessment": {
    "manuscriptsReviewed": 5,
    "correctionsResolved": true,
    "reviewType": "AI-assisted editorial/methodological quality audit",
    "humanPeerReviewCompleted": false,
    "empiricalStudiesCompleted": 0,
    "doiRegistrationsCreated": 0,
    "retractionCheckingComplete": false,
    "disposition": "Five original critical/evidence-informed conceptual articles with prospective study protocols may be presented as public research editions. This audit does not grant peer-reviewed acceptance, establish framework validity, or replace human author and editor accountability.",
    "seedIdeasActual": 80,
    "seedIdeasClaimed": 100,
    "seedMissingDomain": "Domain3 / ideas41–60",
    "remainingIssueWideItems": [
      "Record real author approval, contribution and conflict disclosures for the final public versions.",
      "Any future human peer-reviewed acceptance requires an independent handling editor and actual human review reports, decisions and dates.",
      "No new human review status may be inherited from previous Cheteni manuscripts.",
      "Treat direct source checks as targeted; do not label every citation retraction-cleared or every primary full text independently appraised.",
      "All protocols remain prospective; no institutions, participant numbers, study registrations, approvals or results may be invented."
    ]
  },
  "releaseStatus": "public-research-edition; no independent human peer-review or acceptance claim",
  "editionSources": [
    {
      "article": "D01",
      "title": "From Virtual Presence to Physical Competence: Consequence-Preserving Transfer in K–12 Spatial STEM",
      "slug": "virtual-presence-physical-competence",
      "sha256": "aa234306c6db32393fd98978f6db1d6fa09b3f38898ee8dcf7070e3d4831f497"
    },
    {
      "article": "D02",
      "title": "Who Holds the Classroom? Bounded Pedagogical Autonomy for Social Robots and AI Agents in K–12 Education",
      "slug": "bounded-pedagogical-autonomy-classroom-agents",
      "sha256": "a64e84ac030ab56543be3276a0e6bfc4e5543f0e257d59d8014ebfcca76447ba"
    },
    {
      "article": "D03",
      "title": "Public Contribution Without Prestige Proxies: Designership as a Mentored Inquiry Pathway in K–12 Education",
      "slug": "designership-public-contribution-mentored-inquiry",
      "sha256": "88a0d7bfc8084082c1ed269cc341daa6b5d56dfc53610edd444ee871095dbaa0"
    },
    {
      "article": "D04",
      "title": "A School Must Be Reachable: Digital Infrastructure, Accessible Opportunity, and the Designership Service Obligation",
      "slug": "reachable-school-infrastructure-equity",
      "sha256": "f1e232bd25a8dce8b503b9121f2a53da06a1b2661d3135ba17da3328dadc1fbc"
    },
    {
      "article": "D05",
      "title": "From Paper Agents to Accountable Student Scholarship: A Claim–Evidence–Contribution Ledger for K–12 Research",
      "slug": "accountable-student-scholarship-paper-agents",
      "sha256": "126c6e3a8c887af1920388b1e8aa6e9095d7ded72bd5e0995499f79ad5a7c9e7"
    }
  ],
  "hashExplanation": "Reviewed source file hashes identify the unchanged prepared manuscript JSONs under provenance/. Edition source hashes identify canonical scholarly content as documented in each edition JSON. These are distinct checksum scopes."
}