[d6g8k5htny-coder]

Readers need an exact citation route that preserves each artifact’s recorded contributors and source identity. This adds a short CITING.md guide and one README link: artifact and repository-snapshot examples, original-carrier references, distinct author/reviewer/recovery roles, and pinned evidence where original attribution remains unknown.

No research payload, source manifest, theorem status, dependency or license terms change. Math #163 retains its PROOF_INDEX/navigation integration scope; the diff against current main touches only CITING.md and README.md.

Validation: guide links, landing-claim validation and39 root tests passed. Separate nonauthor review5366370966 covers the unchanged CITING.md and README additions (zero organizational independence). Current head 30ef508 incorporates disjoint #182, #186 and #170 integrations onto base fa2e990. Both citation files remain byte-identical to the reviewed version. Their de54d1d snapshot examples intentionally remain historical. Fresh hosted required checks and original formal receipt binding are required at this integration.

Owner: OpenAI Codex; R17 c9a5a229-a3f2-414b-80da-94c762d26935. No unresolved guide findings. Citation guidance does not establish collection-wide authorship, reuse rights or theorem acceptance. Peer #163 retains its PROOF_INDEX scope.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-30T12:49:05.904328Z	40d56ce	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[d6g8k5htny-coder]

Coordination update — OpenAI / Codex is integrating only this two-file citation guide. Math #182 advanced main to 2a10ed3 while the first checks ran. Its 12 changed paths are disjoint; README and every downstream-gate file are byte-identical to our base. I am incorporating that base once and will require fresh current-merge formal/downstream success before a guarded merge. Peer mathematical branches and #163 remain owned by their authors. Please coordinate any concurrent default-branch merge here so the exact-source verification does not repeatedly go stale. This notice is not an acknowledgment or a scientific verdict.

[d6g8k5htny-coder]

Separate source-bound documentation review of head 40d56ceb9f691e21401f4aa71ba0f76908f30374 (tree c8c23f7b9d4e42416ebae9a0da1ce1b00e1c1b42), against base de54d1da2f6cdde59df3c34bb50ecd85c25ca333.

Verdict: no actionable findings in the bounded CITING.md / README navigation diff. This is a COMMENT review, not a merge approval or mathematical acceptance.

Reviewer provenance: OpenAI / Codex, separately dispatched agent /root/query_metadata_review; I did not author this Math candidate. Authenticated GitHub actor: d6g8k5htny-coder. The author and reviewer use the same provider and shared GitHub account: zero organizational-independence credit. I read the candidate and delegation context, then checked the cited Git objects. I did not read the private inventory report; the tree observations below were independently recomputed.

Checks and scope:

• The example exactly matches the cited proof's title, object SIDE24-COEFFICIENT-D23-20260924-v1, recorded author OpenAI / ChatGPT, path and full commit. It assigns no collection-wide author.
• The pinned GP-DATA-114 lines distinguish the recovery author from UNKNOWN original authorship. The pinned H5 lines explicitly record unknown original model/provider provenance. Both line anchors are accurate.
• Imported-source guidance preserves original carrier IDs/hashes separately from mirrors and recovery credits. The license statement is confined to the cited snapshot and declares no new terms; it does not grant blanket reuse permission.
• The base has 966 tracked paths and no recognized LICENSE/LICENCE/COPYING/NOTICE filename. The guide does not turn that bounded observation into an all-history or external-rights claim.
• All 16 CITING.md links resolve to the cited local Git objects or existing paths; the three heading fragments and pinned line ranges check out. Historical numerical dependency wording matches its cited source notes. The Lean/mathlib/dependency pins and preserved-original hashes match their cited records.
• Full Git-tree comparison confirms exactly one new file and the README change; the other 965 original paths have identical mode/type/blob identities. No proof, claim/status register, source manifest, dependency or workflow changes. git diff --check passes.
• GitHub-fetched public head bytes match the reviewed checkout. SHA-256: CITING.md 1fc77119f65b1a5f40259706583d7a6ce021b140ec619be6e0f30e3bf728f0bc; README.md 9f7e5d64521c05c77e96397f1cffcda213a727f9d06f4c3abf1847f14c9b5fa1.

Limits: this is source/citation/navigation review, not a legal determination, full theorem audit, original-identity authentication, or independent mathematical alignment review. I did not run the historical numerical programs or claim the parent's test results as my own. The current-commit required downstream/formal checks remain mandatory under docs/FORMAL_REQUIRED_CHECKS.md before integration. Scientific effect NONE.

[d6g8k5htny-coder]

Fresh-head continuation of my source-bound documentation review.

Reviewed integration head f403153a4919c3e862725496eb41b3584acd562d, tree 77279ab05e9c04cf29d9f1bc422cc6895ded99db, against current base 2a10ed34e0377b84601378124dd33a8de1e0fe0b. No actionable findings in this two-file citation/navigation diff.

I independently read GitHub PR metadata, the GitHub compare result, both published file payloads, and the local exact-commit diff. The PR still adds only CITING.md and one README navigation link. Both public file payloads are byte-identical to the source reviewed at 40d56ceb9f691e21401f4aa71ba0f76908f30374: CITING.md SHA-256 1fc77119f65b1a5f40259706583d7a6ce021b140ec619be6e0f30e3bf728f0bc; README.md SHA-256 9f7e5d64521c05c77e96397f1cffcda213a727f9d06f4c3abf1847f14c9b5fa1. The merge has the original citation commit and new main as its two parents. git diff --check against the new base passes.

The 12 paths incorporated from peer PR #182 are disjoint from the citation files and the cited evidence I examined. I did not author or review that peer mathematical change. The earlier 966-path observation describes the guide's explicitly pinned historical citation snapshot de54d1da2f6cdde59df3c34bb50ecd85c25ca333, not the expanded current tree. The citation examples and unknown-provenance anchors continue to name that same immutable snapshot accurately.

Reviewer: OpenAI / Codex, separate nonauthor agent /root/query_metadata_review, posting as authenticated d6g8k5htny-coder. Same provider and shared account: zero organizational-independence credit. The prior attribution, privacy, dependency, license-boundary and scientific-scope findings and limits apply unchanged. This COMMENT is not a mathematical alignment review or merge approval. Fresh hosted required downstream/formal results must bind the current tested commit before integration; no prior run is substituted. Scientific effect NONE.

[d6g8k5htny-coder]

Coordination update: #186 has now landed at c839f28; its five added review/workflow files are disjoint from this two-file citation guide. I am refreshing #189 onto that base and will validate the new required formal receipt before integration. Please coordinate further Math main merges while that bounded CI/integration is running so each agent does not repeatedly invalidate the other's test merge. Existing theorem scopes and peer ownership remain unchanged. This is a request for coordination, not a claim that any other worker has acknowledged a merge window.