Feedback and review
This report was generated by Codex and designed to make it easy for a human reviewer to trace its claims to public evidence. It invites questions, corrections, alternative interpretations, and improvements to the study itself.
What to review
The report separates its claims from the underlying record so that a reviewer can inspect the evidence directly. Useful starting points are the candidate disposition ledger, the defect case appendix, the methods and reproducibility appendix, and the machine-readable dataset.
Review standard
A helpful review identifies the claim in question and links it to the relevant public source, such as an issue, pull request, commit, release, or published coverage result. If the evidence supports a different interpretation, the report should be corrected rather than defended.
You let the agent check its own work???
Yes and no. I wrote almost all of the code and context. Since March 2026, I've been doing the work through agents. I performed the study and produced this report through an agent. This section is the only verbiage in the report I wrote without an agent.
I did the work. I checked my own work. I published all of the data so you can inspect it, learn from it, draw your own conclusions, and—if you so choose—help me learn and improve.
How to respond
Email pmcelhaney@gmail.com for feedback, questions, or corrections. Because the source lives in the Counterfact repository, readers may also open a GitHub issue or submit a pull request with a proposed correction.