# Challenge the Dossier — Critics and Scholars

> The project is designed so a critic can attack a specific proposition rather than dismissing the whole archive by assertion.

## How to challenge a claim

For each disputed proposition, identify:

1. **Claim ID** — what exactly is being asserted?
2. **Primary text** — what source is being used?
3. **Translation / lexical choice** — is the wording defensible?
4. **Date / chronology** — is the source earlier or later than claimed?
5. **Inference** — what step connects the source to the conclusion?
6. **Counterevidence** — what evidence points the other way?
7. **Run / branch** — where was this tested?
8. **Current verdict** — did later work preserve, modify, or supersede it?

## Anti-cherry-picking controls

The dossier includes rival-candidate strengthening, evidence-dependency audits, negative controls, leave-one-family-out testing, hostile tribunals, current-verdict/reversal rules, and preserved historical versions.

## Key audit exhibits

- Evidence Dependency Audit — `#p0321-02-run-048-report-b82ed727`
- Strongest Pre-Johannine YHWH Reconstruction — `#p0328-03-run-049-report-a12d4a45`
- Hostile Falsification Tribunal II — `#p0425-03-run-063-full-report-895dec8b`
- Current Verdict + Reversal Rules — `#p0442-00-current-verdict-standard-6ceed2a4`
- Run 62 External Blind Validation — search the archive for `Run 062` / `five-rater`.

## Integrity rule

Historical runs remain available for provenance, but a superseded historical statement should not be quoted as the current project verdict when a later canonical verdict exists.