Outcome: Three entries received claim-level source audits, targeted article edits, and independent read-only post-edit reviews. All three are source_checked for the claim-traceability scopes in their evidence records. This does not establish that an argument is sound, a disputed conclusion is true, or that any entry received human expert review.
The three dataset records now match their articles’ Further Reading URLs and use the 2026-11-01 verification date. No public review-status field or badge was added.
This batch brings claim-level audits to 32 of the 57 expansion entries; 25 remain outside these audits. Selection prioritized different high-risk areas: decision-theoretic and publication-history claims, contested rule-following interpretation, and technical physics plus attribution of later responses.
Access limits remain explicit in the ledgers. Pascal’s primary text was read in English, not in a critical French edition; the underlying papers by several named critics were not individually read. Kripke’s complete monograph was unavailable, so the primary text check used a selected excerpt alongside the SEP and other consulted passages. Newton’s primary text was read in Motte’s English translation rather than the 1687 Latin edition; Mach’s 1883 bucket passage was not directly retrieved, and Newton’s connected-globes paragraph was not independently read. No human expert reviewed this batch.
The repository validator passed for all 132 entries, the documented unittest suite passed all 18 tests, and git diff --check passed. Article and dataset reference URLs match for all three entries. Work remains local, unstaged, uncommitted, and unpushed on audit/source-review-high-risk; HEAD remains 0d26e66. No merge or release was made.