Adversarial Referee Verdict

The actual verdicts produced by the six adversarial referees designed in document 19. The conclusion is straightforward: after a source-by-source audit, the main proof router of v0.3 was not killed. However, the referees did catch a real citation error: the Miller result cited by Banwait–Huang is actually for "most" rather than "all" curves with conductor $<5000$ — in other words, the initial citation in document 15 that "Miller has verified all curves with conductor<5000" was a misreading of the source scope, which is repaired by the more precise Creutz–Miller Theorem 1.1 (the content of document 21). The document explicitly states: there are currently no known mathematical branch gaps remaining. Therefore, the claim level is formally upgraded from PROVISIONAL DERIVED FAMILY THEOREM to DERIVED THEOREM CANDIDATE — but not upgraded to NEW THEOREM, because novelty is another independent Gate that has not yet been checked. The document concludes by clarifying the methodological principles of this referee round: forcibly distinguishing six layers — theorem statement, source-author remark, our derived lemma, LMFDB arithmetic certificate, numerical sanity check, and novelty inference — if any one source does not support it, the next layer cannot be used to patch the hole; one cannot use "our derivation" to cover up the problem of "the source itself not supporting it."