Repository navigation

Review Guide

This guide explains how to review a bounded part of the Panta Rhei Research Program.

The program is large. A useful review should be bounded.

Choose a review target

Examples:

one Problem Ledger item;
one Recovery Requirement;
one Construction Spine step;
one Result page;
one Research Note;
one TauLib module;
one Numerical Physics Ledger entry;
one Public-Good Briefing;
one website lane or page template.

State your review mode

Possible modes:

mathematical review;
physics review;
biology/life review;
metaphysics/philosophy review;
formalization review;
source/import review;
editorial review;
accessibility review;
reproducibility review;
falsification review.

Review questions

Ask:

What is the exact claim?
What source or support does it cite?
Is the claim correctly typed?
Is the status label appropriate?
Is the Corpus support clear?
Is the Verify route adequate?
What would count as failure?
What remains open?
Is the public wording too strong, too weak, or unclear?

Output format

A useful review should include:

target page or artifact;
review mode;
summary verdict;
major issues;
minor issues;
suggested fixes;
open questions;
whether the review may be cited publicly.

Where to post

Public review offers and review summaries belong in:

GitHub Discussions -> Review Offers / Domain Expertise

Concrete fixes belong in Issues or Pull Requests.