{
  "id": "BQ001-L9-REVIEW-ROUND-1",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "opened_at": "2026-09-17",
  "status": "open_protocol_review_only",
  "attached_independent_reviews": 0,
  "case_coding_started": false,
  "current_maturity_level": 8,
  "bq001_status": "UNRESOLVED",
  "scope": [
    "protocol_completeness",
    "primary_record_recovery_plan",
    "blinding_design",
    "alternative_candidate_design",
    "inter_rater_agreement_plan",
    "denominator_completeness",
    "child_safeguarding",
    "reproducibility"
  ],
  "out_of_scope": [
    "case_outcome_scoring",
    "truth_or_evidence_promotion",
    "model_support",
    "identity_expansion",
    "release_of_unrecovered_or_private_records"
  ],
  "review_tracks": [
    {"id":"protocol_critic","task":"Test whether the frozen rules distinguish correspondence from hindsight, cueing, selective reporting and ordinary exposure."},
    {"id":"source_recovery_verifier","task":"Check that every claimed primary record has a locator, custody status and explicit missing-record entry."},
    {"id":"methods_reviewer","task":"Assess blinding, alternative candidates, agreement, denominator and adjudication without scoring cases."}
  ],
  "independence_declaration": {
    "required": true,
    "disclose": ["authorship","collaboration","advocacy","institutional_ties","financial_ties"],
    "worldview_is_automatic_exclusion": false,
    "undisclosed_conflict_is_disqualifying": true
  },
  "submission_route": "/contact",
  "promotion_effect": "none_until_all_level_9_conditions_are_public"
}