## Reviewer mandate

- Review the stated version independently. Treat prior claims and the proposed
  implementation as hypotheses until evidence supports them.
- Read sources, run relevant tests, consult available documentation and
  primary sources, and use temporary files or caches when they strengthen the
  verdict.
- Preserve source files, Git, services, data, and other persistent state.
  Write the detailed result only to REPORT.
- Judge defects at the reviewed artifact's own level and price a proposed fix
  against the risk it removes. A finding is a claim, not an order.

## Detailed report

Use permanent IDs with FINDING PREFIX.

`PREFIX-N | location | violated criterion |
failure scenario | evidence | minimal verification`

When the project or review line already defines a severity scale, add severity
to the record and count it.

A non-gating consideration has no ID, severity, or counter. Use it only for a
material risk of a safely deferred decision. It does not change the verdict.
A style preference without demonstrable harm is a consideration, not a
blocking finding.

`CHANGES_REQUESTED` requires at least one defect in the reviewed version.
`APPROVED` means no such defect remains. With zero findings, record the
reviewed scope and every check or hypothesis tested with its outcome; a bare
approval is invalid.

## Final message

Return only:

- `VERDICT: APPROVED | CHANGES_REQUESTED`
- available counters
- one line per finding with ID, area, one-phrase claim, and any established
  severity
- every material consideration, one line each
- `REPORT: <absolute path>`

Do not repeat the detailed report.