Required question 1 (exact ID: question-1) Do the declared formulas or projection rules, constants, units, rounding, defaults, and invalid-state behavior match the shipped implementation?
Required question 2 (exact ID: question-2) Are the guardrails and exclusions strong enough to prevent a teaching result from being mistaken for feasibility, safety, clinical, demographic, or mission evidence?
Required question 3 (exact ID: question-3) Does the no-JavaScript presentation convey the same documented example, result, evidence boundary, and access to the underlying records?
Explicit exclusions
Structural or arithmetic correctness does not establish physical, clinical, ecological, demographic, or mission validity.
A teaching interface is not a design tool, safety case, population policy, or authorization to act.
Frozen-evidence decision window: 365 days from the packet freeze. Not applicable to this packet family.
Complete primary record set
Every record below has one primary packet owner. Decisions must bind to the exact record and packet fingerprints; a changed lesson body, evidence grade, citation, locator, source snapshot, requirement, policy, release, or commit expires the old packet.
Downloads contain no reviewer contact details. Downloading does not create an account or store a review response in the GShips application. Ordinary provider request or analytics logs may record the download request. Work locally: the public site has no review account, upload endpoint, or decision-submission API.
Do not paste a completed decision, identity documents, private contact data, confidential conflict evidence, medical information, controlled material, or exploit details into a public form. Until a separately authorized private handoff exists, retain the completed worksheet locally.
Add another --decision for each independent reviewer.
Interpret the result narrowly. A zero exit proves structural consistency only. Neither command appoints or qualifies a reviewer, establishes independence, accepts a decision, or authorizes publication.
Every primary record must receive the required number of valid, current-fingerprint approvals; every complementary scope group and required domain must be covered; any unresolved revise, contest, or reject disposition blocks publication.
Named medical, reproductive, nuclear, radiation, cybersecurity, governance, and dual-use conclusions require two distinct qualified independent humans covering complementary domain-method and rights/public-interest scopes.
Reviewer identity, qualification, independence, conflicts, and compensation must be assessed by accountable human governance; local validation can only report structural validity.
Approve, revise, contest, reject, and recuse remain visible. A negative finding cannot be hidden by an aggregate approval percentage.
Revision creates a new record and packet fingerprint. Prior approvals do not carry forward automatically.
AI may assist with clerical comparison but cannot count as an independent reviewer, identity attestor, appeal authority, or second person.
Prepared review packet · 0 published human decisions · Independent review pending · Suggest a correction
Review-notes worksheet Human-readable notes companion; not validator input · offline notes aid
Review corpus index Corpus SHA-256 8fa944604ca189f5a9216ca59f640ad2ca20972ad512f2f4970764716782e18d · release and ownership index
Assumptions and limits
The exact packet, record, source, policy, release, and source-commit fingerprints bound this prepared page; human review has not started.
Downloading, local structural validation, or completing notes does not appoint or qualify a reviewer, establish independence, accept a decision, authorize publication, or create a relationship.
What would change this page?
Staffed governance, appointed qualified reviewers, completed record-level decisions, published conflicts, minority findings, corrections, or changed review policy would change this page.
People, review, and conflicts
Prepared by
GShips Project
Editorial status
public-alpha accountability pass
Editorial reviewer
GShips Project AI-assisted editorial synthesis
Last editorial review
2026-07-26
Independent review
pending
Independent reviewer
No independent reviewer assigned
Last independent review
No independent-review date exists
Last content edit
2026-07-25
Declared conflicts
The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.