# AkashicOMNI claim-review record

Method: v0.5.0 Public Review Specification, clarified 2 October 2026
Specification: https://akashicnet.org/akashicomni/v0-5-0
Template edition: 7 October 2026 — manual workflow aid, not a software schema
Record ID / revision:
Analysis date:
Author / human reviewer / review state:
AI assistance (tool, date and role, if used):
Scope: full reading / narrower reading (explain)
Domain and context:

## 1. Claim and question
Exact claim and origin:
Question this record can address:
What is outside scope:
Claim type: observation / testimony / interpretation / empirical claim / hypothesis / speculation

## 2. Source register
Repeat for each source:
- Source ID, author, title, date, stable link or supplied-file identifier:
- Passage, page, figure or dataset version inspected:
- Access actually obtained: full text / abstract / excerpt / summary / unavailable
- Access date and unresolved access limits:
- Relevant support and contrary evidence (label paraphrases):
- Shared study, dataset or other dependency group:
- Provenance, reuse rights and attribution needed:

## 3. DISCERN
Observations versus interpretations:
Assumptions, definitions and material uncertainty:
Affected people, consent, privacy and cultural context:

## 4. DEEPEN
Strongest alternative explanations:
Contrary evidence and unresolved disagreements:
Missing information and source dependence:

## 5. Perspective coverage
For a full reading, complete every row using APPLIED, NOT_RELEVANT or
INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION, with a reason and source IDs where applicable.
For a narrower reading, identify the selected perspectives and disclose omissions.
Missing material is insufficient information, not proof of irrelevance.

| Perspective | Status | Reason / contribution / source IDs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| AWAKEN | | |
| HIERATIC | | |
| HOMESENSE | | |
| ADAPT | | |
| REGENERATE | | |
| TRANSCEND | | |
| METAD | | |
| ACTC | | |
| CUT Past | | |
| CUT Present | | |
| CUT Future | | |
| UMASC | | |

Optional lenses, prompts and their source-specific limits (if used):

## 6. Synthesis
Concise provisional answer:
Evidence supporting this answer and its limits:
Contrary evidence and preserved disagreement:
Felt experience / accuracy / usefulness / proposed source (where relevant):
What would change this conclusion:
Proportionate next action, if useful:

## 7. Open research gaps
For each proposed gap: missing evidence, rival explanation, next check or study,
result that would distinguish the explanations, and what it could not establish.
Link a gap card; do not describe a local omission as a field-wide research gap
without an appropriately scoped literature search.

## 8. Review and sharing
Human review completed by / date / scope (or PENDING):
Independent review completed by / date / scope (or PENDING):
Objections and responses:
Rights, privacy or cultural-authority constraints on sharing:
Revision history (date, change, reason, author; preserve earlier conclusions):

Citation: Method: AkashicOMNI v0.5.0 Public Review Specification,
clarification 2 October 2026 (https://akashicnet.org/akashicomni/v0-5-0).
Analysis: [date, scope, source-access limits and reviewer status].