Batch 5: Five Risk-Ranked Entries Source-Checked
Outcome: All five entries are source_checked for their recorded claim-traceability scope after revisions and independent post-edit checks. None is expert_reviewed; source checking does not establish that an argument is true, successful, or settled.
What changed
- Sen’s Paradox of the Paretian Liberal — Sen’s 1970 article was read at the theorem conditions, proof, example, and conclusion. The entry now states pairwise decisiveness precisely, distinguishes the compact three-outcome cycle from the general theorem’s assumptions, qualifies Sen’s conclusion and later rights formulations, and removes an unsupported attribution to Gibbard. The evidence record documents why the complete Sen text was verified through an NCSU-hosted copy rather than the metadata-only Harvard DASH link.
- Leslie’s Firing Squad — The unverified marksman count and claim that publisher metadata establishes a 1990 first-publication date were removed. The simplified setup is labeled as a teaching version; the article reports that SEP and a university catalogue cite 1989 and leaves the exact first-publication date unresolved. Relevant passages from the SEP, Elliott Sober, Roger White, and Jonathan Weisberg support the revised account of observation selection and the named counterarguments. Leslie’s cited pages remain inaccessible, a limitation disclosed in the article and evidence record.
- Loschmidt’s Reversibility Objection — The article now states the conditions for exact velocity reversal, separates Boltzmann’s macro-entropy from fine-grained Gibbs entropy, distinguishes Boltzmann’s separate 1877 arguments from the modern Past Hypothesis, and keeps Zermelo’s recurrence objection separate. Independent follow-up directly read p. 139 of Loschmidt’s original scan; the article now records that limited access accurately. See the evidence record.
- Heisenberg’s Microscope — The revised account separates Heisenberg’s approximate
δqδp ∼ h microscope estimate from the formal Kennard state-preparation inequality, clarifies aperture and recoil-direction qualifications, and bounds the scope of the later experimental example. The independent post-edit review found no material issue. See the evidence record.
- Aristotle’s Sea Battle — The article now distinguishes bivalence from excluded middle, separates later semantic frameworks, and clarifies that on William of Ockham’s account future contingents may be true or false even though their truth is unknowable to humans but known by God. Aristotle’s chapter 9, relevant SEP sections, and a scholarly analysis are now identified in the article. The targeted independent check found no remaining material issue. See the evidence record.
Review limits and audit count
The first independent review identified one unsupported bibliographic wording, one Ockham precision issue, a stale Loschmidt access note, and article/dataset reference-list differences. Those were corrected or qualified; article and dataset Further Reading URLs now match for all five entries. The targeted final checks cleared the Leslie and Ockham changes. Open access limits and live scholarly disagreements remain recorded in the batch evidence ledger. No expert review, exhaustive literature review, or claim that a philosophical or scientific argument is settled is made.
After this batch, 23 of the 57 expansion entries have received claim-level audits; 34 remain outside these audits. All new work remains local and uncommitted on audit/source-review-high-risk; nothing was pushed, merged, released, or deployed.