# C918 — Reconcile the six independent domain reviews

## Question

Which review findings require a change to the final explanation?

## Inputs

```json
{}
```

## Sources

```json
[
  "independent reviews C832–C910"
]
```

## Opened utc

2026-09-28T03:02:14.936182+00:00

## Results

```json
{
  "review_reconciliation": {
    "path": "evidence/REVIEW_RECONCILIATION_C918.json",
    "sha256": "f15cfb3669781848041b2b44a0495571abec3dc1f053d567337c459af67490cc",
    "bytes": 1838
  },
  "review_checks": 170,
  "refinements": [
    {
      "from": "C909 digit information",
      "resolution": "original span plus fixed base10/placeholder policy computes the register; C913 distinguishes primitive and derived state"
    },
    {
      "from": "C907 retained branch held field",
      "resolution": "both constructions hold outer endpoints; only the retention branch holds the original biography. C898 and C906 numeric comparison already distinguishes them"
    },
    {
      "from": "C869 literal_field check label",
      "resolution": "the12-boundary coarsening is derived; only its source four-boundary chiasm is literal"
    },
    {
      "from": "C834 daily allocation",
      "resolution": "uniform non-bull daily allocation is an explicit reconstruction assumption, not inferred from marginal totals"
    }
  ]
}
```

## Finding

All independent domain checks pass. Four presentation refinements keep computed state, retained biographies, derived grids and assumed daily allocation correctly classified. No completed numerical field requires repair.

## Reassessment

Adopt the readable synthesis with these qualifications and precise source language.

## Checks

```json
{
  "six_reviews": true,
  "all_positive": true,
  "four_refinements": true
}
```

## Closed utc

2026-09-28T03:02:14.937054+00:00

## Record provenance

Exact record hash: `728a62dedc3b105fde400e99e2660fb85491eece2b58d48f725c4934945de07a`

Source journal: `Research_Cycles/C0832_C0931/journal.json`