Management Research Notes

A file-based academic knowledge base for management and business sustainability research.

One Markdown note per peer-reviewed paper. Trusted bibliographic metadata from manifests, analytic distillation from a verbatim-anchored extraction prompt, derived SQLite / CSV / BibTeX indexes that you can rebuild from scratch in seconds.

Author

Management Research Notes is authored and maintained by Binqi Tang , a researcher in management and business sustainability. Collaborations are welcome — whether that means using this knowledge base in your own research workflow, adapting it for a new source or subfield, or discussing joint projects. Please open an issue or reach out on GitHub. Citations welcome — see How to cite below.

What it is

This project is a Zettelkasten-style knowledge base for academic literature. Each peer-reviewed article is stored as a single Markdown file in notes/ with two parts:

YAML frontmatter — structured metadata: trusted bibliographic fields (title, authors, year, journal, DOI), a controlled-vocabulary topic list, the methods, the sample, and three custom analytic fields (unit_of_analysis, level_of_theory, dependent_variable_family) that make cross-paper queries actually useful.
Markdown body — a human-readable distillation: verbatim abstract, research question, mechanism / process, theoretical contribution, practical implication, limitations, future research, and a clean APA 7th citation.

A small Python pipeline derives a SQLite index, a flat CSV, and a BibTeX file from the notes — none of which are the source of truth, all of which can be rebuilt with python tools/build_index.py && python tools/export_csv.py && python tools/export_bibtex.py.

Why it exists

Large language models have made it tempting to build a literature review by dropping a pile of PDFs into a chat window and trusting the response. For scholars in management, economics, and adjacent citation-heavy fields — disciplines where every substantive claim is expected to be traceable to a specific prior study — that naive workflow breaks down for three reasons:

Context windows are finite. Even a 200K-token model cannot hold a few hundred full papers at once. You need distilled notes small enough to load in bulk but faithful enough to support real argument.
Provenance is non-negotiable. Every analytic claim in a note is traceable to a cited paper. Abstracts are checked against source text. The V1 review resolved 17 extraction-layout conflicts using the optional PDF-derived check, with source hashes, reproducible extraction and visual boundary review; three book reviews without standalone abstracts use Not reported in paper. Every factual claim in a v2 note carries a ≤25-word evidence anchor verified against the PDF by tools/validate_note.py, and a two-layer faithfulness audit (see below) has a fresh-eyes LLM subagent cross-check the prose fields. Passing audits are evidence of review, not proof that every claim is correct. Verify substantive claims against the original paper before citing them.
Cross-platform and agent-ready. The same note is grep-able from the command line, uploadable as project knowledge to an LLM chat, and citable from a Word / LaTeX / Typst draft via the BibTeX export. Via the SQLite + FTS5 index and the AGENTS.md entry point, any AI agent — Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, a custom SDK app — can consume the library to run retrieval-augmented analysis with known faithfulness guarantees. That's the piece that matters for researchers: it lets one scholar (or an agent acting on their behalf) reason across a literature much larger than any single head can hold, without sacrificing the citation trail a peer reviewer, committee, or journal editor will expect.

The corpus shipped here is management and business sustainability, but the pattern — one Markdown file per paper, trusted bibliographic manifests, a verbatim-anchored extraction prompt, a two-layer audit — transfers straightforwardly to any scholarly corpus where paraphrastic drift is costly: economics working papers, organization theory, policy analysis, STS, labor studies. Fork the repo, point it at your own manifest, and the validator and audit layer come along for free.

The current v0.78.0 design targets libraries growing from dozens to tens of thousands of papers. Whether the shape holds at that scale is an empirical question rather than a settled assumption: some parts — one file per paper, SQLite-derived indexes, the controlled-vocabulary topic list, even the extraction prompt's field set — may need to evolve as the library grows, new sources appear, or research workflows change. Treat the v0.78.0 architecture as a working hypothesis refined by each release, not a frozen spec.

Faithfulness audit

Current review status — v0.78.0, 2026-10-16. AMJ 2014, Volume 57, Issue 6 adds 13 V3 notes, including the editorial, completing coverage of all 13 downloaded papers. Current paired reviews retain 115 SUPPORTED / 2 PARTIAL holistic fields and 2,161 SUPPORTED / 11 UNVERIFIED claims. Five content corrections (three precision, two substantive) and 11 canonical-label replacements preceded publication; every changed note received both fresh full-note readers. All 13 publication-evidence checks pass, with separate source adjudications for retained reservations. SQLite, CSV and BibTeX contain 1,201 records (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 929 V3). See the issue release, corrections and retained judgments.

Published review status — v0.77.0, 2026-10-15. AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 4 adds 8 V3 notes; 1 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analysis is preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Current paired reviews retain 72 SUPPORTED holistic fields and 1,185 SUPPORTED / 2 UNVERIFIED claims. 2 precision body corrections were made before publication, followed by both fresh full-note readers for every repaired note. All 8 publication-evidence checks pass; reader reservations retain separate source adjudications. SQLite, CSV and BibTeX contain 1,188 records (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 916 V3). See the issue release, corrections and retained judgments.

Published review status — v0.76.0, 2026-10-15. AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 3 adds 7 V3 notes; 2 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analyses are preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Current paired reviews retain 62 SUPPORTED / 1 PARTIAL holistic fields and 1,205 SUPPORTED / 5 UNVERIFIED claims. One precision body correction was made before publication, followed by both fresh full-note readers for every repaired note. All 7 publication-evidence checks pass; reader reservations retain separate source adjudications. SQLite, CSV and BibTeX contain 1,180 records (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 908 V3). See the issue release, corrections and retained judgments.

Published review status — v0.75.0, 2026-10-15. AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 2 adds 6 V3 notes; 3 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analyses are preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Current paired reviews retain 54 SUPPORTED holistic fields and 1,321 SUPPORTED / 4 UNVERIFIED claims. 3 precision body corrections were made before publication, followed by both fresh full-note readers for every repaired note. All 6 publication-evidence checks pass; reader reservations retain separate source adjudications. SQLite, CSV and BibTeX contain 1,173 records (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 901 V3). See the issue release, corrections and retained judgments.

Published review status — v0.74.0, 2026-10-14. The selected 34-note AMJ closeout publishes 179 explicitly approved operations across 129 distinct fields (51 substantive / 78 precision), including 14 protected-frontmatter fields across ten notes. All 34 notes have current paired reviews, source adjudications, independent final verification and passing publication-evidence checks. Original judgments remain visible: 305 SUPPORTED / one PARTIAL holistic fields and 3,927 SUPPORTED / 30 UNVERIFIED / one CONTRADICTED claims. The reservations have separately documented source dispositions; they are not relabeled as unanimous support. Historical V3 labels and extraction stamps remain intact. See the release scope and evidence, every correction, and retained judgments and parent coverage.

Completed V1 review — v0.73.0, 2026-10-08. The correction-only review of all 61 legacy V1 notes is complete: 40 corrected notes were published in v0.72.0, v0.73.0 published the remaining 20, and Spoor required no change. These final 20 corrections cover 123 fields (45 substantive / 78 precision), including 48 exactly approved protected-frontmatter fields. Final paired reviews record 115 SUPPORTED / 5 source-adjudicated PARTIAL holistic fields and 1,165 SUPPORTED / 36 source-adjudicated UNVERIFIED claims. All 20 publication-evidence checks pass. Seventeen complete abstracts use the optional, traceable PDF-derived check; three book reviews retain the Abstract heading with Not reported in paper. V1 labels and historical extraction stamps are preserved. See the release evidence and retained judgments and complete correction table.

Published Stage 1 subset — v0.71.0, 2026-10-05. The Stage 1 wave's first-pass review covers 45 notes (322 SUPPORTED / 58 PARTIAL / 16 UNSUPPORTED / 9 CONTRADICTED); those are initial judgments, not final defect counts. Nine approved corrections across six fully reviewed notes are now published, with 54/54 post-repair holistic fields SUPPORTED and 626 SUPPORTED / one source-adjudicated UNVERIFIED claim among 627 claims. Two Zhang comparison-coverage gaps retain separately attributed parent source judgments. See the full correction and rationale disclosure.

The 34-note scope now closes the remaining 87 previously applied Stage 1 operations and all 14 carried proposals, together with subsequently approved corrections. The separate 87-note AMJ queue remains outside this completed scope and has not been resumed. An assembled report alone is not publication readiness. The v0.71.0 workflow and publication-evidence gate require current evidence, resolved dispositions and an explicit selected-note scope. Historical audit PASS totals are not guarantees of source fidelity; verify material claims against the original papers.

Numeric checker — v0.71.0 (patch first published 2026-10-05). Empirical year endpoints, ambiguous glyph candidates and explicit negative signs are handled separately. Candidates never add hits; zero-hit and glyph-only rows require raw verification. The corrected tool reproduced all 895 frozen reports: 46,916 numeric occurrences, 2,721 zero-hit occurrences across 455 notes and 12,266 candidate locations. These are advisory counts, not defect counts. The earlier numeric patch passed 152 tests; the v0.71.0 release adds the separately tested publication-evidence gate.

Every analytic field in every note is checked by a two-layer faithfulness audit before it is accepted into the library:

Layer 1 — Evidence anchors (mechanical, deterministic). Each factual claim in the frontmatter (sample size, country, industry, time period, theories, methods, keywords) carries a ≤25-word verbatim quote from the PDF. The validator checks each quote is a substring of the extracted PDF text under hyphen-tolerant normalization. A fabricated quote fails deterministically — there is no way to pass Layer 1 with invented evidence.
Layer 2 — Semantic audit (fresh cold-context subagent). For the prose fields (research question, mechanism, theoretical contribution, practical implication, limitations, future research) a fresh independent auditor reads the PDF, reads the note, and emits a per-field verdict against the rubric at docs/audit-rubric.md: SUPPORTED / PARTIAL / UNSUPPORTED / CONTRADICTED. A note is rejected if any verdict is UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED.

The full library has been swept across releases:

v0.2.0 sweep (2026-04-17, 90 notes): 88 / 90 initial PASS; two fails (Mahringer 2025, Li 2026) repaired via re-extraction, and the validator was tightened in one place (extended the Not reported in paper escape valve to future_research, mirroring the limitations exemption) based on what the audit found.
v0.3.0 sweep (2026-04-17, full 105 notes): 105 / 105 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. One PARTIAL verdict (Castelló 2025 citing the EU Digital Markets Act instead of the EU Digital Services Act) was surfaced and fixed before release.
v0.4.0 sweep (2026-04-29, 113 notes): 113 / 113 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Eight new notes added from AMJ vol. 68 no. 4 (Grégoire editorial + 7 substantive papers).
v0.5.0 sweep (2026-04-30, 121 notes): 121 / 121 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Eight new notes added from AMJ vol. 68 no. 3 (Bermiss editorial + 7 substantive papers).
v0.6.0 sweep (2026-04-30, 129 notes): 129 / 129 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Eight new notes added from AMJ vol. 68 no. 2 (Rouse editorial + 7 substantive papers). Cleanest batch yet — only 1 PARTIAL across the 8 new notes.
v0.7.0 sweep (2026-04-30, 139 notes): 139 / 139 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Ten new notes added from AMJ vol. 68 no. 1 (Gruber + Cronin editorials + 8 substantive papers — first 10-paper issue we've processed).
v0.8.0 sweep (2026-05-05, 147 notes): 147 / 147 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Eight new notes added from AMJ vol. 67 no. 6 (Reinecke editorial + 7 substantive papers — first issue from volume 67 we've processed).
v0.9.0 sweep (2026-05-05, 156 notes): 156 / 156 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Nine new notes added from AMJ vol. 67 no. 5 (Dorobantu editorial + 8 substantive papers). Zero PARTIAL across all 54 prose-field audits — first perfect-SUPPORTED batch.
v0.10.0 sweep (2026-05-06, 165 notes): 165 / 165 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Nine new notes added from AMJ vol. 67 no. 4 (Bliese editorial + 8 substantive papers). 1 PARTIAL.
v0.11.0 sweep (2026-05-07, 175 notes): 175 / 175 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. Ten new notes added from AMJ vol. 67 no. 3. Three-batch ≤1-PARTIAL streak.
v0.11.1 patch (2026-05-07, 175 notes): Bibliographic-integrity correction. A user-flagged check against Google Scholar surfaced that the Bednar 2024 note (and many others) were citing the online-first publication year rather than the issue year per APA 7. Built tools/verify_years.py to cross-check every DOI against CrossRef's published-print field. Found 48 papers (27% of library) carrying the online-first year. All 48 corrected: manifest rows, frontmatter year: fields, and APA citations updated to the issue year. 175/175 now align with CrossRef. The audit prose fields are unchanged (year doesn't affect any audited content claim), so no re-audit was needed.
v0.11.2 patch (2026-05-09, 175 notes): Bibliographic cross-check extended to all seven CrossRef fields (year, title, journal, volume, issue, pages, authors) via the new tools/verify_metadata.py. The first full sweep on the v0.11.1 library surfaced 21 papers needing manifest backfills (mostly online-first papers in the NBS digest and AMJ vol-69-1 whose issues had since published) plus one wrong-page error (Bamberger's AMR address) and one missing-Oxford-comma title typo in the same paper. After fixes: 175/175 MATCH for year, journal, and authors, and 0 MISMATCH across volume / issue / pages on every paper where CrossRef carries those fields. One remaining flag (Reinecke book review) is documented as a CrossRef-side data corruption, not a note error. Like v0.11.1, no re-audit needed — the audit prose fields are independent of bibliographic metadata.
v0.12.0 sweep (2026-05-10, 186 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 67 no. 2 (11 substantive papers: Anderson, Arslan, Grégoire, Gruber, Li, Liao, Muethel, Pache, Piazza, Preston, Rostain). 186 / 186 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 0 PARTIAL — the cleanest batch outcome to date. Also introduces Tier 3 of the bibliographic-integrity prevention strategy: the new tools/populate_manifest.py auto-populates each manifest's volume/issue/pages columns from CrossRef BEFORE extraction, and (with --fix-year) auto-corrects any wrong years the manifest may have inherited from the publisher's online-first metadata. This is now Step 0 of /synapse-ingest. The v0.12.0 batch proved the mechanism: Tier 3 caught and fixed 7 wrong-year manifest rows in vol-67-no-2 before extraction started — exactly the v0.11.1 bug class, prevented at the source instead of patched retroactively.
v0.13.0 sweep (2026-05-12, 197 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 67 no. 1 (10 substantive papers: Barkema, Bettinazzi, Cao, Dorobantu, Han, Jia, two Park papers, Soublière, To, plus Gruber editorial on the new Research Methods Articles portfolio). 197 / 197 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 1 PARTIAL (Cao practical_implication — minor extrapolation from a contributions paragraph). Second consecutive batch ingested under the Tier 3 prevention infrastructure (introduced v0.12.0) and the post-extraction column-merge heuristic (introduced commit 59a9ace). Tier 3 found zero year mismatches in this batch (the manifest had already been captured after print publication), but still backfilled 11 vol/issue/pages columns. Every extraction agent independently used grep on the extracted text to verify anchor contiguity before writing — Layer 1 passed on first try for all 11 papers, the first batch since the column-merge heuristic went into the extraction prompt to do so.
v0.13.1 patch (2026-05-12, 197 notes): slugify() updated to fold diacritics via NFKD and strip apostrophes, resolving fragmented paper_ids like gr-goire-2024 → gregoire-2024. 5 paper_ids renamed as a deliberate, one-time exception to hard rule 4 (stable IDs) while the library was small and had no known external citations by paper_id.
v0.13.2 patch (2026-05-12, 197 notes): Adds tools/lint_manifests.py — a per-row structural + CrossRef audit of every manifest. First run surfaced 4 legitimate compound surnames (von Krogh, Lee Cunningham, Ter Wal, van den Oever — added to KNOWN_COMPOUND_SURNAMES allowlist) and 6 latent D'Amico-class bugs in the NBS-2026-02 manifest (full given+family name captured instead of just the family name). 6 more paper_ids renamed; combined with v0.13.1 this closes the v0.13.x cleanup cohort (11 papers total). Hard rule 4's footnote in CLAUDE.md revised to use cohort framing.
v0.14.0 sweep (2026-05-16, 210 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 6 (12 substantive papers + Grimes editorial on generative AI's impact on management scholarship). 210 / 210 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 3 PARTIAL (Couture and Sajjadiani mechanism_process — minor attribution drift; Zhang limitations — added "cross-sectional" label not in paper). First batch ingested under the complete three-gate pipeline: Step 0 populate_manifest.py (Tier 3), Step 0.5 lint_manifests.py (structural), Step 4.5 verify_metadata.py (Tier 2 content). All three gates exit 0. Also backfills v0.11.2-pattern drift on two ASQ papers (Lee Democratic Deviations, Reinecke book review) whose vol-71 issue 2 published after their extraction; their note frontmatter + APA citations now reflect the issued version. Xu 2023 title added to KNOWN_CROSSREF_DATA_ERRORS (CrossRef has malformed Forest<i>and</i>the Trees with no spaces around the italic; note matches the published version correctly).
v0.15.0 sweep (2026-05-20, 222 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 5 (11 substantive papers + Dencker editorial on positioning research on novel phenomena). 222 / 222 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 0 PARTIAL — a perfectly clean batch: 12/12 Layer 1 first-try PASS and 12/12 Layer 2 PASS with no PARTIAL verdicts at all. Ingested under the complete three-gate pipeline (populate_manifest → lint_manifests → verify_metadata), all exit 0 with no drift findings or new false positives. Notable papers include the Lander/Voronov pair on Scottish and Canadian whisky authenticity, and the Carnabuci/Rua-Gomez network-formation studies.
v0.16.0 sweep (2026-05-20, 233 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 4 (10 substantive papers + Wellman editorial on publishing multimethod research). 233 / 233 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 1 PARTIAL (Kundro future_research — mild overgeneralization of the paper's actual future directions). Ingested under the complete three-gate pipeline; all gates exit 0 with no drift findings or new false positives. 11/11 Layer 1 first-try PASS (fifth consecutive batch at 100%). The Banerjee audit is a nice illustration of the Layer 2 value: H4 in that paper predicted one direction but the data showed the opposite (significant) — the note correctly reports the empirical result rather than the failed hypothesis, which the auditor verified as faithful rather than CONTRADICTED.
v0.17.0 sweep (2026-05-20, 244 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 3 (10 substantive papers + Langley editorial on opening up AMJ's research methods repertoire). 244 / 244 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 1 PARTIAL (Toivonen practical_implication — practitioner prescriptions synthesized from a paper with no dedicated implications section). Ingested under the complete three-gate pipeline; all gates exit 0 with no drift findings or new false positives. 11/11 Layer 1 first-try PASS (sixth consecutive batch at 100%). This sweep completes the AMJ vol. 66 + vol. 67 coverage from no. 3 onward — the pilot now spans 13 consecutive AMJ issues plus vol. 68 and vol. 69.
v0.18.0 sweep (2026-05-23, 257 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 2 (12 substantive papers + Krogh editorial on AI research opportunities). 257 / 257 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 1 PARTIAL (Zhang mechanism_process — minor mediator-vs- DV imprecision in one study). 13/13 Layer 1 first-try PASS (seventh consecutive batch at 100%). Three of this issue's papers (Krogh→von Krogh, Cunningham→Lee Cunningham, Wal→Ter Wal) are the compound surnames already in the KNOWN_COMPOUND_SURNAMES allowlist; Step 0.5 suppressed all three cleanly, and verify_metadata's note-level author check passed without new false positives (notes carry the full byline forms that match CrossRef; the short form lives only in the paper_id slug). This release also promotes the extraction_model-verbatim instruction into docs/extraction-prompt.md — a validated systemic fix (13/13 agents kept the field uniform this batch vs. up to 7 outliers needing manual cleanup in prior batches), eliminating a recurring per-batch provenance-field normalization.
v0.19.0 sweep (2026-05-23, 270 notes): Adds AMJ vol. 66 no. 1 (12 substantive papers + Gruber editorial on the 23rd editorial term's strategic priorities). 270 / 270 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, 0 PARTIAL — the third perfectly-clean batch (after v0.12.0 and v0.15.0). This release also served as a standalone validation of two infrastructure fixes from prior releases:
- extraction_model verbatim (codified in v0.18.0, commit cc16c71): extraction agents were deliberately dispatched WITHOUT the inline reminder; 13/13 still kept the field uniform purely from reading docs/extraction-prompt.md. The codified location is independently load-bearing.
- Editorial-abstract escape (added in commit 5b4ae81, pre-v0.19.0): Gruber editorial — the first editorial extracted after the fix — wrote "Not reported in paper" for Abstract instead of the sentence-fragment workaround used by all five earlier editorials. 13/13 Layer 1 first-try PASS (eighth consecutive batch at 100%). All three gates exit 0; zero post-extraction remediation needed.
v0.19.1 patch (2026-05-27, 270 notes): Provenance correction — extraction_model field. No content changes; no new notes. The v0.18.0 fix had standardized this field to claude-opus-4-6 (the bundle's stale default), but the actual extraction model for batches from 2026-04-18 onward was Claude Opus 4.7 (the parent session's model, with 57 notes carrying direct agent self-reports as evidence). Updated 108 notes that predated my v0.18.0 fix-to-verbatim with the accurate claude-opus-4-7 value; left 105 pre-cutover notes at claude-opus-4-6 (no direct evidence of model identity for those earlier batches). Constant in tools/prepare_paper.py updated to claude-opus-4-7 so future bundles record the accurate model. Library is now provenance-correct for everything where we have direct evidence; pre-cutover notes retain their original metadata as historical record. All three gates still exit 0 after the sweep (provenance field is not validated or audited).
v0.20.0 sweep (2026-06-11, 352 notes): Adds the NBS December 2025 monthly digest — 82 peer-reviewed papers across Ecological Economics (including the biodiversity-and- finance special issue), AMJ, Business & Society, Review of Finance, Strategic Management Journal, and others. 82 / 82 PASS (Layer 1 + Layer 2). Introduced masthead-based SSRN→published detection (read the page masthead, not the footer DOI, to catch working papers that reached their journal version — 9 upgraded to the published DOI/metadata) and a code-orchestrated parallel-dispatch extraction workflow whose pipeline() fan-out guarantees the subagent count, eliminating hand-dispatch drift. Four incomplete-PDF stubs (Soboleva, Thomas, Willis, Zhu) were re-acquired and ingested. A separate commit cleaned CrossRef metadata drift in 7 prior-release NBS-2026-02 notes (vol/issue/pages now indexed). All three gates exit 0; 6 Review of Finance DOIs are valid but CrossRef-pending and will verify once indexed.
v0.21.0 sweep (2026-06-23, 465 notes): Adds the NBS January 2026 monthly digest — 113 peer-reviewed papers, led by the Journal of Business Ethics (40) with Research Policy (14), the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Organization Science, Human Relations, The Journal of Finance, MIS Quarterly, and others. 113 / 113 PASS (Layer 1 + Layer 2). Each batch ran as two ~5–6-paper waves through the pipeline() extraction workflow to stay under a transient server rate-limit while keeping the subagent count code-guaranteed. Surfaced more SSRN working papers that had reached their published journal version (upgraded to the journal DOI/metadata — e.g. Wang → Journal of Business Ethics, Duguay → Journal of Accounting and Economics) and several filename-lossy title restorations (dropped colons / question marks repaired against CrossRef). Seven incomplete-PDF stubs were found; six were re-acquired and ingested and one (Myers, a special-issue editorial) was skipped. A separate commit cleaned CrossRef metadata drift in 3 prior-release NBS-2026-02 notes. All three gates exit 0 (validate, verify_metadata, lint_manifests).
v0.22.0 sweep (2026-06-24, 542 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 65, issues 1-6 — 77 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 13, 13, 13, 12, 13, 13. This completes AMJ pilot coverage from vol. 65 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 77 / 77 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-65 batch; the full library now has 542 / 542 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-65 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and CrossRef metadata verification exits 0 with no mismatches. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 542 records.
v0.23.0 sweep (2026-06-27, 617 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 64, issues 1-6 — 75 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 12, 12, 13, 12, 13, 13. This completes AMJ pilot coverage from vol. 64 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 75 / 75 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-64 batch; the full library now has 617 / 617 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-64 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and CrossRef metadata verification exits 0 with no mismatches; remaining notices are documented CrossRef-side false positives or lookup warnings. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 617 records.
v0.23.1 patch (2026-06-27, 617 notes): Provenance correction for the AMJ volume-64 Codex batch. The 75 AMJ volume-64 notes now record extraction_model: "gpt-5.5" instead of the stale bundle value claude-opus-4-8. Five audit-identified wording issues were narrowed: Abdurakhmonov et al. (2021) removed an overbroad country-generalization phrase, Jacobs et al. (2021) softened a direct practical prescription to a case-grounded association, Lifshitz-Assaf et al. (2021) removed an unsupported stage-gate reference, Bain et al. (2021) distinguished experimental boundary tests from the Study 3 intervention target, and Ji et al. (2021) removed an unstated national/historical-setting limitation. Abstracts, evidence anchors, bibliographic metadata, and citations are unchanged. The patch also makes GPT-5.5 the Codex extraction/audit default at that release in the workflow docs and sets issue-level parallelism to a fixed 6-agent cap with fallback to 5, 3, or serial execution if stability degrades.
v0.24.0 sweep (2026-06-28, 691 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 63, issues 1-6 — 74 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 13. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 63 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 63 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 74 / 74 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-63 batch; the full library now has 691 / 691 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-63 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and CrossRef metadata verification exits 0 with no mismatches; remaining notices are documented CrossRef-side false positives or lookup warnings. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 691 records.
v0.25.0 sweep (2026-06-30, 767 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 62, issues 1-6 — 76 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 12, 12, 13, 13, 12, 14. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 62 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 62 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 76 / 76 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-62 batch; the full library now has 767 / 767 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-62 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and scoped CrossRef metadata verification for all 76 AMJ volume-62 notes exits 0 with no mismatches. The full-library CrossRef sweep was attempted during release preparation but interrupted by a network-level HTTPS handshake stall; existing pre-AMJ62 notes were unchanged from the v0.24.0 metadata-verified snapshot. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 767 records.
v0.26.0 sweep (2026-07-02, 860 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 61, issues 1-6 — 93 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 16, 16, 15, 15, 16, 15. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 61 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 61 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 93 / 93 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-61 batch; the full library now has 860 / 860 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-61 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and scoped CrossRef metadata verification for all 93 AMJ volume-61 notes exits 0 with no mismatches. The audit sweep has one non-blocking PARTIAL verdict (Aristidou 2018 limitations), retained as harmless compression around scope-boundary wording rather than a faithfulness failure. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 860 records.
v0.27.0 sweep (2026-07-03, 955 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 60, issues 1-6 — 95 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 16, 16, 16, 17, 15, 15. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 60 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 60 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 95 / 95 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-60 batch; the full library now has 955 / 955 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-60 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and scoped CrossRef metadata verification for all 95 AMJ volume-60 notes exits 0 with no mismatches; two AMJ volume-60 author-name notices are documented as CrossRef-side family-name parsing false positives. Two audit-identified future-research fields (Fan 2017 and Katila 2017) were narrowed before release; the final AMJ volume-60 audit scan has 570 / 570 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 955 records.
v0.28.0 sweep (2026-07-05, 1,050 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 59, issues 1-6 — 95 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 16, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 59 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 59 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 95 / 95 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-59 batch; the full library now has 1,050 / 1,050 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-59 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and scoped CrossRef metadata verification for all 95 AMJ volume-59 notes exits 0 with two documented CrossRef-side title false positives in issue 1 (Durand and Zavyalova malformed inline HTML). The final AMJ volume-59 audit scan has 570 / 570 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 1,050 records.
v0.29.0 sweep (2026-07-07, 1,128 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 58, issues 1-6 — 78 peer-reviewed papers with issue counts 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13. This extends AMJ pilot coverage backward to vol. 58 no. 1, so the AMJ pilot now spans vol. 58 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 1. 78 / 78 PASS the faithfulness audit for the AMJ volume-58 batch; the full library now has 1,128 / 1,128 PASS, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED verdicts. All six AMJ volume-58 manifests lint cleanly, all notes validate, and scoped CrossRef metadata verification for all 78 AMJ volume-58 notes exits 0 with three documented CrossRef-side false positives: Byron title inline-HTML spacing, Little / Smith Major author parsing, and Joshi title inline-HTML spacing. Six audit-identified prose fields were narrowed before release (Eggers, Gabriel, Gurses, Kish-Gephart, Lioukas, and Wo); the final AMJ volume-58 audit scan has 468 / 468 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. The public indexes were rebuilt from notes: SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 1,128 records.
v0.30.0 tooling (2026-07-09, 1,128 notes): Schema-and-tooling release — no new notes. Introduces extraction v3, which adds three empirical body sections to every future note — Hypotheses / Propositions, Data & Measures, and Key Findings — plus three matching Layer 1 evidence anchors (hypotheses_source, measures_overview, findings_overview) and three new Layer 2 audited prose fields under audit rubric v2 (nine fields for v3 notes; a reversed finding direction is CONTRADICTED, per the sign-reversal rule). Applied going-forward only: the validator, auditor, and indexer are version-gated on extraction_version, all 1,128 existing v1/v2 notes revalidate unchanged (1,128 / 1,128 OK), and the rebuilt SQLite/CSV indexes carry the three new columns (still 1,128 records; key_findings and hypotheses are FTS5-searchable). Also adds docs/pipeline-runbook.md — a vendor-neutral ingest/audit/publish runbook referenced from AGENTS.md — hardens the shared CrossRef client (retry-with-backoff, negative 404 caching) used by all three metadata gates, and fixes stale documentation references (ingest_batch.py, the tools list, the audit invocation examples).
v0.31.0 sweep (2026-07-10, 1,141 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 57, issue 1 — 13 peer-reviewed papers — the first live extraction-v3 issue: every empirical note carries Hypotheses / Propositions, Data & Measures, and Key Findings with three additional verbatim evidence anchors, audited under rubric v2 (nine prose fields per note). All 13 extractions validated on the first attempt; the final audit scan has 117 / 117 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. Two audit-loop repairs before release: one note narrowing (Marr: per-study status-loss manipulation attribution) and one tooling fix — the audit prompt's references-stripper false-matched a line-initial prose sentence ("References to relationships…", Koerner) and cut the Discussion from the audit input; the stripper gained a prose-guard plus regression tests, and Koerner re-audited cleanly against the full text. The release also raises the audit text budget to 240K chars with anchor-aware splicing (every evidence anchor's context is guaranteed visible to the auditor), migrates both CrossRef false-positive registries to JSON data files (tools/known_crossref_issues.json, tools/known_compound_surnames.json), adds a --model provenance flag to the ingest tools (this issue's notes record claude-fable-5), and adds anti-overreach scope guidance to the extraction prompt. Manifest lint and scoped CrossRef pass 13/13 with zero new false-positive entries; SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX all contain 1,141 records.
v0.77.0 — AMJ Volume 69, Issue 4 (2026-10-15): AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 4 adds 8 V3 notes; 1 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analyses are preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Final reviews: 72 SUPPORTED holistic fields; 1,185 SUPPORTED / 2 UNVERIFIED claims, with source dispositions retained. 2 precision draft repairs and both fresh readers for each repaired note; all 8 readiness gates pass. Corpus: 1,188 notes (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 916 V3). See release evidence.
v0.76.0 — AMJ Volume 69, Issue 3 (2026-10-15): AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 3 adds 7 V3 notes; 2 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analyses are preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Final reviews: 62 SUPPORTED / 1 PARTIAL holistic fields; 1,205 SUPPORTED / 5 UNVERIFIED claims, with source dispositions retained. One precision draft repair and both fresh readers for each repaired note; all 7 readiness gates pass. Corpus: 1,180 notes (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 908 V3). See release evidence.
v0.75.0 — AMJ Volume 69, Issue 2 (2026-10-15): AMJ 2026, Volume 69, Issue 2 adds 6 V3 notes; 3 existing DOI-matched NBS V2 analyses are preserved, completing coverage of all nine downloaded papers. Final reviews: 54 SUPPORTED holistic fields; 1,321 SUPPORTED / 4 UNVERIFIED claims, with source dispositions retained. 3 precision draft repairs and both fresh readers for each repaired note; all 6 readiness gates pass. Corpus: 1,173 notes (61 V1 / 211 V2 / 901 V3). See release evidence.
v0.74.0 — 34-note AMJ correction closeout (2026-10-14): Publishes 179 approved operations across 129 fields in 34 notes (51 substantive / 78 precision), closing the remaining 87 applied operations and 14 carried proposals with subsequent approved corrections. Current paired reviews, source adjudications, independent verification and all 34 publication-evidence gates are complete. The release preserves reader reservations and separately attributed parent coverage, and discloses dispatch-sequencing deviations. Corpus remains 1,167 notes (61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3); bibliography, V1 work and historical stamps are unchanged. The separate 87-note AMJ queue remains outside this scope.
v0.73.0 — V1 correction review completed (2026-10-08): Publishes the final 20 reviewed V1 notes, closing all 61 notes with 60 minimally corrected and Spoor unchanged. This release changes 123 fields (45 substantive / 78 precision; 48 protected metadata fields explicitly approved). The optional PDF-derived abstract check resolves 17 extraction-layout conflicts; three book reviews use the no-abstract sentinel. Both fresh readers, source adjudication, independent workshop and all 20 publication gates are complete; 269 tests pass. Remaining interpretive and fitted-source limits are disclosed in the release. Corpus remains 1,167 notes (61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3); AMJ repairs remain paused.
v0.72.0 V1 correction subset (2026-10-08, 1,167 notes): All 61 V1 notes received an extraction/data, holistic and claims first pass. Forty eligible notes now contain 165 corrected fields (86 substantive / 79 precision); 20 whole notes remain held and one is unchanged. Both fresh readers, raw-source adjudication, independent source workshops and all 40 publication-evidence gates are complete. Final results are 238 SUPPORTED / two accepted PARTIAL holistic fields and 2,543 SUPPORTED / 41 source-adjudicated UNVERIFIED claims. Scope, qualifications and every correction are disclosed. Counts remain 61 V1 / 211 V2 / 895 V3; bibliography and historical extraction stamps are unchanged. The paused AMJ corrections remain outside this release.
v0.71.0 workflow consolidation and six completed corrections (2026-10-05, 1,167 notes): Nine clause corrections across eight fields in Crossland, Broschak, Marr, Reilly and two Zhang notes (AMJ 57-3) are published after both readers and source adjudication; 34 changed notes and all 14 pending proposals remain outside this release. Post-repair holistic results are 54/54 SUPPORTED; claims are 626 SUPPORTED plus one source-adjudicated UNVERIFIED. Two parent-resolved coverage gaps are disclosed. Every before/after clause, severity and raw-line reference is retained with the academic publication rationale. The workflow strengthens per-study extraction, formulas, units, comparisons, finite adjudication and release boundaries; a new read-only readiness tool checks hash-bound evidence. Counts remain 61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3. This releases verified improvements without claiming flawless accuracy or completion of Stage 1.
v0.70.0 independent readers, rubric v3 and numeric checks (2026-10-04, 1,167 notes): Tooling and process release; no published note, official audit report, source text or index changed. The v0.70.0 census remains 61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3, with 25 accepted AMJ PARTIAL fields across 23 notes.

New ingestion, augmentation and repair re-audits use two fresh blind readers: a holistic rubric-v3 audit and a separate atomic claims-verification pass. The writer context is never a reader. Runtime records verified gpt-6-astra for holistic readers and gpt-5.6-sol for claims readers. The parent verifies disagreements and non-supported claims against raw text, then assembles all reports before repairs. Claims sidecars have strict hash, schema and verbatim-quotation validation; reports record both readers and extraction, augmentation and any explicitly supplied repair writer model. The Claude CLI remains an unused manual fallback.

Rubric v3 retains the earlier verdict definitions and adds eight mandatory checks: numbers and units, direction, formula order, item-by-item robustness, study attribution, stated prescriptions and scope, cross-field consistency, and exact source/note quotations for adverse verdicts. Eight worked examples document previously repaired public-note errors. The fitter is unchanged.

Calibration used preserved Git baselines for seven defective notes (eight fixed target defects) and three deterministic controls. The original control gate failed: both holistic readers marked Crossland's Data & Measures CONTRADICTED. Its clause, “year-on-year absolute change across six Winsorized, logged, standardized strategic-choice variables,” leaves the transformation order ambiguous and literally conflicts with raw lines 433–438: compute each absolute difference, log it, standardize the logged measure, then sum. Crossland remains an unchanged diagnostic candidate, including a separate Future Research scope concern at raw lines 736–738 and 764–772.

With explicit user approval, the next eligible ID, Yam-2017, was added as a supplementary control; Crossland and the original failed gate were retained. The amended controls are Rogan, Zhu and Yam. Yam returned 9/9 SUPPORTED in both holistic arms and 71/71 SUPPORTED claims. Rogan's denominator-year and solo/collective-departure qualifications were accepted as framing; the amended controls have no UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED result.

Calibration arm Non-regression defects caught Improvement defects caught Amended control gate

A: holistic rubric v3 4/4 3/4 PASS

B: independent holistic + claims 4/4 3/4 PASS

Arm A missed Fitzsimons's cycle qualification; Arm B caught it through claims but missed DesJardine's exact SEC-attribution clause. Two claims-task revisions and mechanical quotation completions are preserved in private evidence. The user's decision rule selects one fresh holistic reader plus the numeric check for Stage 1 only. At the v0.70.0 release, that pass had not started and required a separate assignment. Repairs still require both readers again. The purposive calibration does not estimate an error rate or establish a causal model comparison.

tools/check_numbers.py checks numeric presence before dispatch, with thousands-separator, decimal and contextual PDF-glyph normalization. Across all 895 AMJ v3 notes it checked 46,901 token occurrences: 438 notes had no zero-hit token; 457 had 2,728 zero-hit occurrences (298 notes with 1–5, 88 with 6–10, 71 with 11 or more). Of those occurrences, 2,399 are negative tokens often requiring glyph/table review. These are advisory candidates, not confirmed defects. No candidate was repaired. All 114 tests pass; bibliographic fields and library.bib are byte-identical, so CrossRef and index rebuilding were unnecessary. Private prompts and audits remain local.

v0.69.0 second-opinion sample and residual PARTIAL closeout (2026-09-13, 1,167 notes): Forty-five AMJ notes received fresh blind full nine-field gpt-6-astra audits under the unchanged standard fitted input: a deterministic random sample of 36 notes (12 per era) plus nine notes carrying 11 earlier accepted PARTIALs. Eligible frames contained 127 claude-opus-4-8, 270 claude-opus-5 and 279 gpt-5.6-sol notes. Each stratum used random.Random(20260911).sample on its sorted eligible IDs, with no redraws or substitutions; editorials, the 31 v0.68.0 re-audit notes and the residue set were excluded from the random frame.

The frozen first pass returned 370 SUPPORTED / 30 PARTIAL / 0 UNSUPPORTED / 5 CONTRADICTED across 405 fields. Parent raw-source adjudication identified 30 distinct repair-class fields in 20 notes: 23 substantive and seven precision-grade defects. Five CONTRADICTED fields, 23 PARTIAL fields and two parent-flagged SUPPORTED fields needed repair; seven first-pass PARTIALs were accepted. The table below preserves this first-pass comparison and excludes later discoveries. S/P/U/C are auditor verdicts; defect counts include parent verification.

Stratum	First pass S / P / U / C	Affected notes, all / substantive only	Defective fields, all / substantive only
claude-opus-4-8	90 / 14 / 0 / 4	10/12 (83.3%) / 8/12 (66.7%)	17/108 (15.7%) / 13/108 (12.0%)
claude-opus-5	104 / 4 / 0 / 0	3/12 (25.0%) / 2/12 (16.7%)	3/108 (2.8%) / 2/108 (1.9%)
gpt-5.6-sol	106 / 2 / 0 / 0	1/12 (8.3%) / 1/12 (8.3%)	1/108 (0.9%) / 1/108 (0.9%)
Residue (purposive)	70 / 10 / 0 / 1	6/9 (66.7%) / 6/9 (66.7%)	9/81 (11.1%) / 7/81 (8.6%)

All includes substantive and precision grades. Substantive changes a contradicted direction, number, formula, unit, significance or attribution, or removes a claim/prescription the paper does not make. Precision preserves a supported core claim while correcting wording, coverage, scope or qualification. Each field takes its highest clause severity. The omitted but explicitly hypothesized Dwertmann mediator is graded precision as completion of an otherwise supported list; it remains repair-class. Grades are explicit parent judgments, not an independent severity rating. Affected-note rates count distinct notes, not defective clauses.

Stratum	Field family	Audited fields	Defects, all	Substantive only
claude-opus-4-8	Three v3 fields	36	10/36 (27.8%)	9/36 (25.0%)
claude-opus-4-8	Six legacy fields	72	7/72 (9.7%)	4/72 (5.6%)
claude-opus-5	Three v3 fields	36	3/36 (8.3%)	2/36 (5.6%)
claude-opus-5	Six legacy fields	72	0/72 (0.0%)	0/72 (0.0%)
gpt-5.6-sol	Three v3 fields	36	0/36 (0.0%)	0/36 (0.0%)
gpt-5.6-sol	Six legacy fields	72	1/72 (1.4%)	1/72 (1.4%)
Residue (purposive)	Three v3 fields	27	3/27 (11.1%)	3/27 (11.1%)
Residue (purposive)	Six legacy fields	54	6/54 (11.1%)	4/54 (7.4%)

The three v3 fields are Hypotheses, Data & Measures and Key Findings; the other six are legacy fields. These are schema families: native-v3 notes do not necessarily have a separate augmenter. No first-pass Hypotheses defect was found. Across the random sample, the first pass found 21/324 defective fields (6.5%) in 14/36 notes (38.9%); excluding precision, 16/324 fields (4.9%) in 11/36 notes (30.6%). First-pass accepted PARTIALs by era were 1, 1 and 1, plus four in the residue set.

Repair-round discoveries are separate: Fitzsimons Data & Measures mislabeled observation hours as meeting counts (substantive; the field was already counted for a different first-pass error); DesJardine Practical Implication attributed existing SEC requirements where the paper reported warnings (substantive; one additional field); and Fitzsimons Key Findings omitted the first-three-cycle qualification (precision; one additional field, found by parent sibling-field review despite SUPPORTED verdicts). These are three later clauses across two already-affected notes, adding two distinct fields, not three. All three clauses existed in the published baseline; the findings were not introduced by the first repair wave.

Stratum	Cumulative defective fields, all / substantive only	New distinct fields after first pass
claude-opus-4-8	19/108 (17.6%) / 14/108 (13.0%)	2
claude-opus-5	3/108 (2.8%) / 2/108 (1.9%)	0
gpt-5.6-sol	1/108 (0.9%) / 1/108 (0.9%)	0
Residue (purposive)	9/81 (11.1%) / 7/81 (8.6%)	0

Stratum	Cumulative field family	Audited fields	Defects, all	Substantive only
claude-opus-4-8	Three v3 fields	36	11 (30.6%)	9 (25.0%)
claude-opus-4-8	Six legacy fields	72	8 (11.1%)	5 (6.9%)
claude-opus-5	Three v3 fields	36	3 (8.3%)	2 (5.6%)
claude-opus-5	Six legacy fields	72	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
gpt-5.6-sol	Three v3 fields	36	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
gpt-5.6-sol	Six legacy fields	72	1 (1.4%)	1 (1.4%)
residue	Three v3 fields	27	3 (11.1%)	3 (11.1%)
residue	Six legacy fields	54	6 (11.1%)	4 (7.4%)

Cumulative repairs cover 32 distinct fields in the same 20 notes: 24 substantive and eight precision. The random-sample cumulative count is 23/324 fields (7.1%), or 17/324 substantive fields (5.2%); affected-note counts remain 14/36 and 11/36 respectively. Repeat audit exposure was selective, so these cumulative counts must not replace the frozen first-pass comparison. DesJardine’s formula repeated in two fields counts as two field defects with one underlying formula error. The approved Trzebiatowski methods-frontmatter repeat is outside all nine-field denominators.

All 45 first-pass official reports were assembled before the first repair wave; all 20 repair-round reports were assembled before the three later clauses were changed. Four mandatory stops were followed by explicit user continuation approvals. Six interrupted workers were restarted in fresh contexts without changing model or input. The final two full-note audits returned 17 SUPPORTED / 1 framing PARTIAL. Across all rounds there were 67 completed full-note audits (603 field verdicts), using at most three workers at once.

Final scoped state: 394 SUPPORTED / 11 accepted PARTIALs, zero UNSUPPORTED and zero CONTRADICTED. All 45 official reports and sidecars match final full-note and source hashes. Of the 32 repaired fields, 30 now score SUPPORTED; Kilduff and DesJardine Key Findings retain PARTIALs for different wording nuances, while their corrected results and clauses are supported. All relevant source passages were visible throughout; the fitter, source texts, extraction/augmentation prompts and historical stamps were unchanged.

Of v0.68.0’s 11 earlier residue fields, three cleared unchanged (Xu Data & Measures and Future Research; Li Limitations), six were repaired and now score SUPPORTED (Chan Practical Implication; Dwertmann Mechanism Process and Theoretical Contribution; Hersel Data & Measures; Toivonen Practical Implication; Trzebiatowski Data & Measures), and two remain accepted (Lauriano Data & Measures and Hagtvedt Future Research). Fourteen other v0.68.0 PARTIAL fields were outside this authorized residue scope and retain their prior acceptances. Nine newly documented framing/paper-internal PARTIALs yielded the v0.69.0 AMJ inventory of 25 fields across 23 notes; the unchanged total masks this turnover. Both inventories are disclosed below.

Era caveat: the claude-opus-4-8 stratum is backfill batches 01–07, before per-study attribution (batch 28), named-entity verification (batch 25) and the Limitations scope-boundary rule (batch 31). Stratum differences reflect pipeline maturity as well as auditor model and are not a causal model comparison. The era key is augmented_model when present, otherwise the native-v3 official auditor model; it does not identify the writer of every inherited legacy field. Twelve notes per stratum give imprecise rates; fields within notes are correlated. Equal allocation across unequal frames is not a corpus-weighted estimate, and the purposive residue set is not pooled with the random sample. The v0.68.0 comparison—four defects in 31 notes (12.9%) and 279 fields (1.4%)—was a targeted input-loss sample, not an equivalent random control, and was not graded with this severity scheme.

Recommendation: run a full second-opinion pass before NBS backfill, prioritizing batches 01–07 and their Data & Measures and Key Findings, then their legacy mechanism and implication fields. Next cover later-era measure/result attribution and legacy scope or prescription risks, including retained PARTIALs under the v0.69.0 review policy. Keep full-note audits to catch repeated premises across fields. Zero defects in a 12-note cell does not justify exempting that era or field family. This release does not start that full pass.

Validation and publication checks: all 20 changed notes validate; SQLite, CSV and BibTeX were rebuilt sequentially and their ID sets reconcile with all 1,167 notes. BibTeX is byte-identical (no exported bibliographic field changed), and CSV retains CRLF. Scoped CrossRef was skipped because bibliographic frontmatter is unchanged; the only frontmatter exception is the explicitly approved nonbibliographic Trzebiatowski methods timing correction. Pytest is not applicable: no tool or test code changed. Census stays 61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3, including all 895 AMJ notes at v3. NBS notes and the cleanup queue were untouched. All 1,167 stored official reports PASS with zero UNSUPPORTED/CONTRADICTED; this is evidence of review, not proof that undetected errors are absent. Legacy NBS reports lack hash provenance; the documented Wiedner note-only mismatch remains outside scope. Kim/Eggers full-raw-text exceptions remain superseded by v0.68.0; none was used here.

Every repaired published field (exact clauses; raw extracted-text line numbers):

Published note / field	Severity; discovery	Before → after	Raw lines	Final field verdict
amj-vol-68-no-1-desjardine-2024, Mechanism Process	substantive; First pass	“- IV: Rival-MSCI common institutional ownership (rival-MSCI CIO) — the average product of an investor's ownership in MSCI and in the target firm's industry rivals, summed across common institutional owners with >=1% stakes.” → “- IV: Rival-MSCI common institutional ownership (rival-MSCI CIO) — for each rival-MSCI pair, multiply the summed ownership stakes that qualifying common institutional owners hold in the rival by their summed stakes in MSCI, then average these products across the target firm's industry rivals; qualifying owners hold >=1% in both firms.”	445–487	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-desjardine-2024, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“computed via Equation 1 as the average product of an investor's ownership in MSCI and in the target firm's industry rivals, summed across institutional owners holding at least 1% of both MSCI and a rival (Thomson Reuters 13F Holdings)” → “computed via Equation 1 by summing qualifying common institutional owners' stakes in each rival and separately in MSCI, multiplying the two sums for each rival-MSCI pair, and averaging these products across the target firm's rivals; qualifying owners hold at least 1% of both MSCI and the rival (Thomson Reuters 13F Holdings)”	445–487	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-desjardine-2024, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“The main effect and moderators hold across Heckman selection, firm fixed effects, random effects, an alternative (IVA) industry classification, and the KLD and ASSET4 quasi-natural experiments (post-acquisition KLD-score effect b = -0.531, p < .10).” → “The negative main association persists in Heckman selection, firm fixed-effects, random-effects, and alternative (IVA) industry specifications, but moderator support varies: both controversy interactions are nonsignificant in the IVA tests, and several interactions lose significance when entered jointly. The KLD and ASSET4 acquisition analyses support the main relationship without testing the hypothesized reputational moderators (post-acquisition KLD-score coefficient b = -0.531, p < .10).”	865–887; 1108–1135; 1171–1195; 1233–1255; 1407–1443; 1445–1495	PARTIAL
amj-vol-67-no-5-kilduff-2024, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“alters successfully hid their ties from those who saw them as rivals.” → “alters successfully hid their ties from those they considered to be rivals.”	197–204; 781–798	PARTIAL
amj-vol-68-no-5-carnabuci-2025, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“derived from the share of a class’s patents that are cross-classified into other primary classes” → “computed as one minus the class-year mean of each patent’s fraction of subclasses assigned outside its primary class”	334–354	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-5-carnabuci-2025, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“(Table 7, all six models)” → “(Table 7; five of six models are significant, but the full-sample prior-art-citation coefficient in Model 5 is not)” “and class-year aggregation / GLS.” → “and GLS; class-year aggregation yields significance for CD3 and CD5 but not CD1.”	739–775; 873–883 739–775; 873–883	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-67-no-3-compagni-2023, Practical Implication	substantive; First pass	“Hospitals and other professional organizations should make space for, and legitimate, collegial cross-specialty collaboration and humanistic patient relations as central rather than ancillary practices, recognizing that they can generate positive moral feedback that helps professionals persist amid uncertainty.” → “Collegial cross-specialty collaboration and humanistic patient relations can become central rather than ancillary practices, generating positive moral feedback that helps professionals persist amid uncertainty.”	1392–1406; 1412–1436	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-67-no-4-rapp-2023, Data & Measures	precision; First pass	“independently coded each interview” → “independently coded the vast majority of interviews”	244–249	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-6-flynn-2025, Limitations	precision; First pass	“and the samples skewed female and White” → “and the Study 3 sample skewed female and White”	865–882; 359–386; 549–550; 836–837	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-2-fitzsimons-2024, Mechanism Process	precision; First pass	“- Constraints that compel transition to next cycle: isolation, embattlement, alienation, and finally collapse.” → “- Constraints that compel transitions after the first three cycles: isolation, embattlement, and alienation; the fourth cycle ends in collapse.” “Each social defense diffuses, deflects, or displaces anxiety while bolstering leaders' power, but creates a constraint that erodes its effectiveness, resurfacing anxiety and compelling the next cycle.” → “Social defenses diffuse, deflect, or displace anxiety while bolstering leaders' power; in the first three cycles, each creates a constraint that erodes its effectiveness, resurfacing anxiety and compelling the next cycle.”	905–935; 1166–1175 905–935; 1166–1175	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-2-fitzsimons-2024, Practical Implication	precision; First pass	“condemning the change effort to fail” → “making failure of the change effort more likely”	1183–1198	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-2-fitzsimons-2024, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass + repair round	“mostly using in vivo codes drawn from informants' language and tracking the ebb and flow of emotional codes (e.g., "performance anxiety") over time. Second, they developed more abstract codes,” → “mostly using in vivo codes drawn from informants' language. Second, they developed more abstract codes and tracked the ebb and flow of emotional codes (e.g., "performance anxiety") over time,” “Throughout, they complemented the inductive coding” → “During the second stage, they complemented the inductive coding” “760 hours of nonparticipant observation across 385 Leadership Team meetings, 231 project team meetings, and 144 Change Oversight Group meetings;” → “760 hours of nonparticipant observation across Leadership Team meetings (385 hours), project team meetings (231 hours), and Change Oversight Group meetings (144 hours);”	377–406 377–406 251–269; 284–299; 306–315	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-6-lee-2025, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“reciprocation operationalized behaviorally as interpersonal citizenship behavior (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) in Study 1 and as incentivized reward-, resource-, time-allocation, and recommendation decisions in Studies 2-3.” → “reciprocation measured through self-reported interpersonal citizenship behavior (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) in Study 1, incentivized reward-allocation and recommendation decisions in Study 2, and simulated resource- and time-allocation decisions in Study 3.”	542–554; 796–814; 974–1028	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-6-xu-2023, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“- All three hypotheses received strong support, and results held across fixed-effect Poisson, multilevel modeling, 2SLS, five alternative embeddedness measures, and inflection-point sample splits.” → “- All three hypotheses received support in the main analyses, with checks using fixed-effect Poisson and multilevel modeling. The 2SLS and five alternative embeddedness-measure checks tested H1 only. In the inflection-point split, the below-peak slope was positive, but the above-peak negative slope was not significant (p = .655).”	560–577; 718–737; 1323–1354; 1395–1427	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-67-no-5-kilduff-2024, Mechanism Process	substantive; First pass	“friendship tie between ego and alter (exploratory moderator that intensifies hiding and seeking effects)” → “friendship tie between ego and alter (exploratory moderator that strengthens seeking; the hiding interaction is marginal, p = .080)” “the field study shows these processes operate in a real organization even after controlling for actual structural equivalence, common friendship ties, and direct knowledge-sharing ties.” → “the field study supports predicted relationships in a real organization after controlling for actual structural equivalence, common friendship ties, and direct knowledge-sharing ties, while capturing outcomes of both intentional and unintentional behavior and perception.”	966–989; 1001–1005 966–989; 1001–1005	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-67-no-5-kilduff-2024, Future Research	substantive; First pass	“ using longitudinal observational designs” → [deleted]	1068–1078	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-5-gama-2025, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“Results hold across numerous robustness tests (alternative partnership coding, continuous scandal-intensity measures, alternative fixed-effects and estimation specifications, and sample restrictions).” → “Results generally hold across numerous robustness tests (alternative partnership coding, continuous scandal-intensity measures, alternative fixed-effects and estimation specifications, and sample restrictions), but the political-board-ties interaction becomes positive when industry and year effects replace firm effects (Model 17).”	883–895	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-65-no-3-tang-2022, Data & Measures	precision; First pass	“with industriousness (α = .98), job autonomy (α = .88), job demands (α = .91), and tenure with intelligent machines as controls;” → “with tenure with intelligent machines as the primary control and industriousness (α = .98), job autonomy (α = .88), and job demands (α = .91) added in the Appendix K robustness model;”	1000–1018; 1055–1065	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-2-bianchi-2023, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“obtained as restricted state-level data from the National Opinion Research Center and merged on state of current residence and survey year” → “merged on survey year and respondents’ state of current residence, with the latter obtained as restricted information from the National Opinion Research Center”	237–247	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-4-belinda-2023, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“Study 1 (N = 119, standardized estimates):” → “Study 1 (N = 119, standardized direct paths; unstandardized bootstrapped indirect effects):” “Study 2 (N = 63, standardized estimates):” → “Study 2 (N = 63, standardized direct paths; unstandardized bootstrapped indirect effects):”	428–440; 747–764; 790–806 428–440; 747–764; 790–806	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-60-no-6-powell-2017, Limitations	substantive; First pass	“They also note that relationships between connected or separate enactments of community and specific structuring patterns may vary across venture contexts, institutional pressures, prior founder ties, paid work arrangements, and large organizing wins.” → “They also note that relationships between connected or separate enactments of community and specific structuring patterns may vary with venture context and institutional pressures; prior founder ties, paid work arrangements, and large organizing wins instead qualify patterns of continued engagement.”	1540–1552; 1556–1594	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-trzebiatowski-2024, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“DVs = one-year-ahead turnover rate of women and racialized non-leaders (associates) and leaders (partners), each the count who departed during a year divided by the count at that year's start.” → “DVs = annual turnover rate of women and racialized non-leaders (associates) and leaders (partners), each the count who departed during a year divided by the count at that year's start; turnover during a given year was reported in the following year's survey and linked to diversity practices reported in April–May of the turnover year.”	446–456; 469–472	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-chan-2023, Practical Implication	substantive; First pass	“For professionals whose clients have grown more powerful (career advisers, lawyers, physicians, therapists, consultants), the study suggests cultivating diagnostic skill at reading client values and a repertoire of variably visible value-enactment practices, rather than committing wholesale to either accommodation or resistance.” → “The study shows how career advisers read client values and use a repertoire of variably visible value-enactment practices, rather than committing wholesale to either accommodation or resistance.” “Occupational training that emphasizes relational skills and a service-oriented disposition toward heterogeneous clients can help experts protect their jurisdiction without surrendering their professional purpose.” → “The authors suggest these mechanisms may be more likely in occupations where socialization emphasizes relational skills and a collaborative or service-oriented regard for clients.”	1318–1343; 1179–1185 1318–1343; 1179–1185	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-chan-2023, Key Findings	substantive; First pass	“Negative cases establish the same relationship in the opposite direction. When advisers failed to discern accurately and applied value-magnifying practices to students committed to popular careers, students reacted negatively: they refused to return for advice, circulated negative sentiment about advisers among peers, and left negative appointment feedback and low satisfaction ratings that reached bosses and deans, any of which could undercut advisers' legitimate and autonomous hold over their tasks.” → “Negative cases suggest the corresponding risk. When advisers failed to discern accurately and applied value-magnifying practices to students committed to popular careers, students reported negative experiences. Observed and prospective reactions included not returning for advice, discouraging peers from seeking it, and negative appointment feedback; the authors explain that low satisfaction ratings sent to advisers' bosses could undercut advisers' legitimate and autonomous hold over their tasks.”	1146–1188	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-dwertmann-2023, Mechanism Process	precision; First pass	“- Mediators: CSR perceptions; competence stereotypes; disability–job fit stereotypes” → “- Mediators: CSR perceptions; competence stereotypes; warmth stereotypes (hypothesized); disability–job fit stereotypes”	414–431	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-dwertmann-2023, Theoretical Contribution	substantive; First pass	“determines whether disability-inclusive hiring is interpreted as reputational asset or liability” → “conditions whether disability-inclusive hiring yields a significant positive CSR signal: the benefit is not significant at high egoistic or low sincere motive attributions”	994–1016	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-2-hersel-2023, Data & Measures	substantive; First pass	“a PRI consistency threshold of 0.70” → “PRI consistency thresholds of 0.70 for favorable reactions and 0.80 for unfavorable reactions”	338–344; 370–389	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-3-toivonen-2023, Practical Implication	substantive; First pass	“Autonomous creators and the mentors, accelerators, and coworking communities supporting them should recognize that highly critical, core-directed feedback can trigger an agonizing but generative period rather than mere failure.” → “The study shows that, for autonomous creators, highly critical, core-directed feedback can trigger an agonizing but generative period rather than mere failure.” “Supporting creators through the emotional upheaval—via opportunities to reach out to diverse networks and reach in to core values—can help them work through the process of letting go,” → “Creators reappraised their ideas through reaching out to diverse networks or reaching in to core values as they worked through letting go,”	1313–1345 1313–1345	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-hagtvedt-2024, Mechanism Process	substantive; First pass	“mutually reinforcing” → “potentially self-reinforcing”	1185–1241; 1350–1353	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-trzebiatowski-2024, Practical Implication	precision; First pass	“organizations must avoid mixed safeguarding signals and pair resource practices with both high non-discrimination and high accountability;” → “organizations must avoid mixed safeguarding signals; the ideal configuration pairs resource practices with both high non-discrimination and high accountability;”	1090–1111; 1112–1137	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-desjardine-2024, Practical Implication	substantive; Repair round	“requirements of the kind the SEC applies to rating-agency conflicts.” → “requirements, in light of the SEC's warnings about inadequate disclosure and internal controls.”	323–330; 1705–1723	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-2-fitzsimons-2024, Key Findings	precision; Repair round	“, which in turn creates a constraint that resurfaces anxiety and compels the next cycle.” → “; in the first three cycles, this produces a constraint that resurfaces anxiety and compels the next cycle.”	905–935; 1166–1175	SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-trzebiatowski-2024, Methods frontmatter	substantive; First pass; explicit frontmatter exception	“and predicting one-year-ahead turnover rates of women and racialized associates (non-leaders) and partners (leaders);” → “and predicting turnover rates of women and racialized associates (non-leaders) and partners (leaders) for the year of the practice measures, using turnover reported in the following year's survey;”	446–456; 469–472	Validated; Data & Measures SUPPORTED

Disposition of all 25 v0.68.0 accepted PARTIAL fields:

Note	Field	v0.69.0 disposition
amj-vol-61-no-5-deken-2018	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-62-no-2-sherf-2019	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-62-no-4-nigam-2019	Practical Implication	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-62-no-4-simsek-2019	Limitations	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-62-no-5-lin-2019	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-64-no-6-wang-2021	Limitations	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-64-no-6-wang-2021	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-1-dushnitsky-2022	Key Findings	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-3-fang-2022	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-4-ferns-2022	Practical Implication	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-4-lazar-2022	Data & Measures	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-5-koppman-2022	Limitations	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-5-matusik-2022	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-5-williams-2022	Future Research	Prior acceptance retained; outside this re-audit scope
amj-vol-65-no-6-xu-2022	Data & Measures	Cleared unchanged: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-65-no-6-xu-2022	Future Research	Cleared unchanged: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-chan-2023	Practical Implication	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-dwertmann-2023	Mechanism Process	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-dwertmann-2023	Theoretical Contribution	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-1-lauriano-2023	Data & Measures	Remains accepted PARTIAL
amj-vol-66-no-2-hersel-2023	Data & Measures	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-66-no-3-toivonen-2023	Practical Implication	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-1-hagtvedt-2024	Future Research	Remains accepted PARTIAL
amj-vol-68-no-1-trzebiatowski-2024	Data & Measures	Repaired: SUPPORTED
amj-vol-68-no-4-li-2025	Limitations	Cleared unchanged: SUPPORTED

At v0.69.0 closeout, the remaining accepted PARTIALs were: 25 fields across 23 notes.

Note	Field	Acceptance basis
amj-vol-59-no-6-heese-2016	Practical Implication	The paper explicitly proposes the three interventions. The note says “may require,” not that they necessarily work or produce a lasting solution. Omitting the separate social-norm discussion is compression rather than a false effectiveness claim.
amj-vol-61-no-5-deken-2018	Future Research	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-62-no-2-sherf-2019	Future Research	Framing; source visible; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-62-no-4-nigam-2019	Practical Implication	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-62-no-4-simsek-2019	Limitations	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-62-no-5-lin-2019	Future Research	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-64-no-6-wang-2021	Limitations	Framing/locality; raw-text adjudication; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-64-no-6-wang-2021	Future Research	Framing/locality; raw-text adjudication; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-1-dushnitsky-2022	Key Findings	Paper-internal inconsistency; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-2-foy-2022	Mechanism Process	The paragraph compresses the central theorized pattern rather than claiming an exhaustive case census. The same field identifies six venture types and low-to-high tension, and Key Findings explicitly reports the three low-tension outliers. Aligned founders’ adoption of sociopolitical best practices does not contradict their avoidance of challenging the sociocultural status quo.
amj-vol-65-no-3-fang-2022	Future Research	Framing; source visible; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-4-ferns-2022	Practical Implication	Framing; source visible; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-4-lazar-2022	Data & Measures	Paper-internal inconsistency; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-5-koppman-2022	Limitations	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-5-matusik-2022	Future Research	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-65-no-5-williams-2022	Future Research	Prior non-tooling acceptance; not re-audited in this scope.
amj-vol-66-no-1-chan-2023	Limitations	The source calls both features boundary conditions, says lengthy interactions may be required and relational socialization makes the mechanisms more likely, and concludes Within these two boundary conditions. The unchanged note uses the hedged likely require and explicitly attributes these two boundaries. It adds no unnamed generalizability target or unsupported practitioner prescription. The compression is somewhat stronger but remains a tentative rendering of the stated boundaries, rather than a categorical necessity claim.
amj-vol-66-no-1-lauriano-2023	Practical Implication	All three recommendations and their audiences are explicitly present. The note makes no claim that the policies necessarily remove stigma or cannot reproduce hetero/cisnormativity. Omission of the additional caution is a nuance/compression PARTIAL, not an invented intervention or false effectiveness claim.
amj-vol-66-no-1-lauriano-2023	Data & Measures	The Methods explicitly says each interview lasted 60–120 minutes, whereas Table A1 lists one 50-minute interview. The note follows the paper’s prose. Figure 1 includes shadowing in the 480-hour total, but the note’s “additionally” introduces a method and does not assert 496 total hours; Methods likewise introduces it with “Furthermore.”
amj-vol-67-no-3-compagni-2023	Limitations	The explicit retrospective-interview limitation is faithfully retained. “Possibility of hindsight bias” is a modest, clearly tentative methodological inference, not an invented generalizability target; the paper’s countervailing reflective benefit remains in the same sentence.
amj-vol-67-no-4-rapp-2023	Future Research	The complete paragraph on hero-washing transferability explicitly names neurodiverse workers as an example of mixed social evaluations (raw lines 1450–1496, continuing at the top of the right column). Grouping these named extensions is minor framing/compression, not an invented target. The preliminary candidate is preserved but not selected, consistently with approved proposal 04.
amj-vol-67-no-5-kilduff-2024	Key Findings	The repaired rivalry direction is supported. Detailed numerical results, outcome labels and directions are correct. The remaining final-summary shorthand is read in that explicit context; the paper itself labels the boundary p=.050 differently in its table and prose. Do not edit accurate detailed results to satisfy this wording residue.
amj-vol-68-no-1-desjardine-2024	Key Findings	Objective is a stronger shorthand than the paper's reasonable benchmarks. The same clause explicitly identifies ESG risk incidents and ASSET4 evaluations, gives the correct gap coefficients and null benchmark associations, and limits the conclusion to consistent with a rating-bias interpretation. No measure, number, sign or result is misstated by this remaining adjective. After three full audits, retain this subjective wording residue under the convergence rule; disclose that objective is analyst framing, not a source-established guarantee of unbiased measurement.
amj-vol-68-no-1-hagtvedt-2024	Future Research	Collective dynamics are an explicitly named unexamined process, and shifting/blended imagining pathways are within the paper’s model. The tentative “could” agenda extends that named process modestly; it does not invent an external generalizability target.
amj-vol-68-no-4-li-2025	Data & Measures	507 newcomers follows the introduction; 509 appears in Methods and the promotion counts, an internal source discrepancy. The note assigns random intercepts only to performance/mediator regressions, calls promotion a repeated-events Cox model, and does not claim that promotion bootstrapping retained random intercepts. The alternative-model detail is omitted rather than contradicted.

Process deviations and exceptions: the four stop/resume approvals and six fresh-context restarts are preserved verbatim in the private evidence; the only protected-field exception was Trzebiatowski methods. A Lee restart dispatch contained one extra character in the operational note hash, corrected before return; the verified sidecar has the exact final hash and its analytical input never changed. Hayward’s initial first-pass dispatch included a path typo corrected in the same dispatch. No sample redraw, model substitution, raw-text audit, fitter/prompt change, NBS work or cleanup- queue change occurred. The README’s former absolute assurance about error- free publication is narrowed to the verified limits of audit evidence. Private prompts, raw returns, ledgers and sidecars remain untracked, PDF- free and below the 5 MB per-file archive guard.

v0.68.0 audit fitter repair and standard-input re-audit (2026-09-11, 1,167 notes): The reference cut now preserves body prose interleaved with a right-column bibliography, advancing to a repeated left-column author/year transition and falling back to the old heading cut if no transition is found. A user-approved exception retains a positively identified terminal prose band only when the complete text fits the existing budget. Right-column and titled uppercase appendix headings are recognized, and the approved appendix cap is 60,000 characters. Source text files are unchanged.

Two byte-identical sweeps of all 1,167 texts found 528 same, 88 improved, 1 changed-otherwise, and 550 no-match. The one other change adds only a reference heading and whitespace. Every source interval retained by the old fitter remains present: zero regressions, no new sandwich-truncated paper, and no appendix truncation. All 14 victim papers / 28 literal probes and all 42 scoped field-restoration proofs pass. The largest fitted source is 246,024 characters; this includes the existing anchor-splice allowance, not an enlarged base budget. The 15% strip-ratio caution remains unchanged. Tests: 51 passed.

Fresh blind gpt-6-astra audits covered 31 notes / 279 fields under standard fitted input. The baseline was 239 SUPPORTED / 40 PARTIAL; first pass returned 273 SUPPORTED / 5 PARTIAL / 1 CONTRADICTED. All first-pass official reports were assembled before repairs. With explicit user authorization, four previously published fields were corrected: Kotha (2018) reversed who pays licensing fees; Foulk (2018) reversed the direction of accountability feedback; Shea (2019) omitted the feedback-task-first qualification on Study 3 comparisons; Fang (2022) omitted parental controls from the baseline-model description. These passages were already visible to the old fitter. Fresh full-note audits after repair returned 35 SUPPORTED / 1 framing PARTIAL across 36 fields.

Final scoped state: 276 SUPPORTED / 3 accepted framing PARTIALs, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED. 39 of 40 previously accepted text-loss fields are now SUPPORTED. Fang's Future Research remains PARTIAL for a different reason: examples drawn from the controls discussion extend the explicit future agenda; the supporting source is visible. The other framing PARTIALs concern Sherf's Future Research example of objective field performance and Ferns's more definite explanation of Occupy's relative failure. Their wording is unchanged. Kim and Eggers each pass 9/9 under standard fitted input, superseding both historical full-raw-text audit exceptions; the original exception evidence is kept.

At v0.68.0 publication, official reports were 1,167/1,167 PASS, with zero UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED. AMJ has 25 accepted PARTIAL fields across 22 notes: the three above, 11 non-tooling fields retained without fresh audit, and 11 earlier-batch fields outside this session's scope. See AGENTS §5 for the complete list and the limits of audit assurance. No NBS notes or cleanup-queue entries changed. All 31 scoped notes validate with matching audit hashes; bibliographic frontmatter, historical provenance and anchors are unchanged. SQLite, parsed CSV and BibTeX reconcile to 1,167; CSV changes exactly four fields and BibTeX is byte-identical. Scoped CrossRef was skipped because bibliographic fields did not change. The v0.68.0 census remains 61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3. The runbook now requires fail-safe fitter changes, real-layout fixtures and repeated containment checks before publication.
v0.67.0 v3 backfill batch 34 — AMJ v3 backfill complete (2026-09-10, 1,167 notes): Upgrades the final 13 existing v2 notes from AMJ volume 58 issue 1 to v3. No new notes, v1 re-extractions, already-v3 skips, calibration repairs, or paper-type changes were needed. The total remains 1,167, and the census shifts from 61 v1 / 224 v2 / 882 v3 to 61 v1 / 211 v2 / 895 v3.

This release completes the AMJ v3 backfill: all 895 AMJ notes across 70 total issues are now v3. The completed backfill covers 67 issues from volume 58 issue 1 through volume 69 issue 1; three earlier volume 57 issues were already native v3. The only remaining v1/v2 notes are the 272 NBS notes (61 v1 and 211 v2).

First-pass blind nine-field audits returned 115 SUPPORTED and 2 PARTIAL out of 117, with no UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED. All 13 official reports were assembled with final hashes before any repair. Parent source verification produced 10 legacy-field repairs across 9 notes, including 8 fields initially scored SUPPORTED. The repairs correct practical and future-research scope, distinguish predictor groups from moderators, remove invented limitations, and clarify planned rather than observed job return.

Every repaired note received a fresh blind full-note audit; the nine re-audits returned 81/81 SUPPORTED. The final state is 117/117 SUPPORTED, including all 39 new v3 fields, with 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. No faithful-PARTIAL acceptance or full-raw-text audit exception was needed. All 13 scoped official report/sidecar pairs match the final note and source hashes; all 22 audit returns, prompts, and preserved report/sidecar pairs reconcile.

All 13 notes validate. The augmentation guard passed before repairs and now flags exactly the 10 registered legacy fields. Bibliographic YAML bytes, historical extraction provenance, original evidence, and paper types are unchanged; the new v3 sections and anchors are unchanged during repairs. Augmentation provenance records gpt-6-astra and 2026-09-10. Scoped CrossRef was skipped only after field-by-field proof of byte-identical bibliographic frontmatter.

Sequential SQLite, parsed CSV, and BibTeX rebuilds reconcile to 1,167 records with identical record IDs and byte-identical BibTeX. Full-library validation passed 1,167/1,167; direct regressions passed 22/22 for PDF-text fitting and 15/15 for augmentation. All 13 writers and 22 auditors have verified gpt-6-astra runtime metadata.

This is the fifth batch run end-to-end on gpt-6-astra (GPT-6 Astra). Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol, and 30–34 gpt-6-astra. Cross-family calibration scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, 25/27 for batch 28 (both divergences repaired in v0.62.0), 26/27 for batch 30 (the divergence adjudicated faithful), and 26/27 for batch 32 (the divergence explained by a documented input-mode difference). Batch 34’s workshop review is scheduled to run the closing cross-family spot-audit, including a pre-repair probe. The original augmented notes and exact first-pass prompts are preserved; that review has not yet been performed.
v0.66.0 v3 backfill batch 33 (2026-09-07, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 58 issues 3 and 2, 13 notes each, from v2 to v3. No new notes, v1 re-extractions, already-v3 skips, or calibration repairs were needed. The record total remains 1,167; the census shifts from 61 v1 / 250 v2 / 856 v3 to 61 v1 / 224 v2 / 882 v3. Paper types are unchanged.

All 26 notes validate. All augmentation guards passed before legacy repairs; final guard differences match exactly the 15 registered legacy fields across 12 notes. Bibliographic frontmatter, historical extraction provenance, and original evidence remain unchanged. The three new v3 sections and their anchors are unchanged during repairs; augmentation provenance records gpt-6-astra and 2026-09-07.

First-pass blind nine-field audits returned 226 SUPPORTED and 8 PARTIAL out of 234, with no UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED. All 26 first-pass official reports were assembled before any repair. Parent source verification produced 15 legacy-field repairs, including 11 fields initially scored SUPPORTED, narrowing unsupported practical, limitations, and future-research scope, correcting the stage of moderation, and qualifying marginal evidence. Every changed note received a fresh blind full-note audit; the 12 re-audits returned 108/108 SUPPORTED.

The final state is 230 SUPPORTED and 4 accepted PARTIALs out of 234, with 0 UNSUPPORTED and 0 CONTRADICTED. All 26 notes pass overall with matching final full-note and source hashes. Of the 78 new v3 fields, 77 are SUPPORTED and one is an accepted PARTIAL. All 38 audit returns reconcile with their preserved official reports and sidecars; 26 final official report/sidecar pairs match the final notes.

The four retained PARTIALs are faithful claims whose supporting passages were omitted from fitted audit input: Di Stefano Limitations (14.43% strip), Reyt Data & Measures (18.85%, Appendix 1 validation sample and discriminant validity), and Zhang Practical Implication and Limitations (19.61%, explicit training guidance and sample/common-method qualifications). Each acceptance records raw-presence/fitted-absence reconstruction and a subsequent reading of the complete recovered passage. No faithful text was removed, and no full-raw-text audit exception was needed.

Scoped CrossRef was skipped only after field-by-field proof of byte-identical bibliographic YAML. Sequential SQLite, parsed CSV, and BibTeX rebuilds reconcile to 1,167 records, with byte-identical BibTeX. Full-library validation passed 1,167/1,167; direct regressions passed 22/22 for PDF-text fitting and 15/15 for augmentation. All 26 writers and 38 auditors have verified gpt-6-astra runtime metadata.

This is the fourth batch run end-to-end on gpt-6-astra (GPT-6 Astra). Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol, and 30–33 gpt-6-astra. Cross-family calibration scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, 25/27 for batch 28 (both divergences repaired in v0.62.0), 26/27 for batch 30 (the divergence adjudicated faithful), and 26/27 for batch 32 (the divergence explained by a documented input-mode difference). No spot-audit is scheduled for this batch’s review; final calibration is expected at batch 34’s workshop review.
v0.65.0 v3 backfill batch 32 (2026-09-07, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 58 issues 5 and 4, 13 notes each, from v2 to v3, and repairs only Limitations in three already-v3 notes: Shani (2016), Ayyagari (2015), and Graffin (2016), following the workshop's batch-31 review. These calibration repairs remove generalizability targets the papers do not state while preserving their design facts and acknowledged limitations. The record total remains 1,167; the census shifts from 61 v1 / 276 v2 / 830 v3 to 61 v1 / 250 v2 / 856 v3.

All 29 touched notes validate. All 26 augmentation guards passed before legacy repairs; final guard differences match the 21 registered legacy fields across 14 target notes. The three calibration notes independently pass Limitations-only and unchanged-frontmatter checks. Bibliographic frontmatter and historical provenance remain unchanged; augmentation provenance truthfully records gpt-6-astra and 2026-09-07.

First-pass blind nine-field audits returned 251 SUPPORTED, 9 PARTIAL, and 1 UNSUPPORTED out of 261 judgments. All first-pass official reports were assembled before audit-driven repairs. Parent raw-source review produced 21 further legacy-field repairs across 14 notes, including 12 fields initially scored SUPPORTED, correcting directional wording, variable roles, theoretical versus empirical support, and unsupported practical, limitations, and future-research scope. Every repaired note received a fresh blind full-note audit. Together with the three assigned calibration repairs, this release repairs 24 legacy fields across 17 notes.

The final state is 260 SUPPORTED and 1 accepted PARTIAL out of 261, with 0 UNSUPPORTED and 0 CONTRADICTED. All 29 notes pass overall with final note and source hashes. All 78 newly added fields and the nine existing v3 fields in the calibration notes are SUPPORTED. Shani and Ayyagari returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. Graffin returned 8 SUPPORTED and 1 accepted PARTIAL: its Limitations sentence about an inexpensive, effective tactic and unexplained non-use is explicit in raw text but absent from fitted input at 14.15% strip. Reconstruction proof and subsequent reading confirm fidelity; the sentence remains unchanged.

Kim's legacy Future Research field received UNSUPPORTED in two standard audits because the fitter omitted the explicitly stated aspirations and expectations agenda at 13.88% strip. With explicit per-note user approval, a fresh blind auditor received the complete raw source and returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. The official report was assembled with the audit tool's own functions, with the input mode, prompt hash, and authorization in both provenance and audit context, alongside the standard fitting diagnostic. Both original verdicts remain preserved; no faithful note text, tool, or workflow document changed for this exception.

Scoped CrossRef was skipped after field-by-field proof of byte-identical bibliographic frontmatter. Sequential SQLite, parsed CSV, and BibTeX rebuilds reconcile to 1,167 records, with unchanged paper types and byte-identical BibTeX. Full-library validation passed 1,167/1,167; direct regressions passed 22/22 for PDF-text fitting and 15/15 for augmentation. All 44 independent audit returns and preserved official reports reconcile, with 29 final official report/sidecar pairs.

This is the third batch run end-to-end on gpt-6-astra (GPT-6 Astra) for augmentation and audit. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol, and 30–32 gpt-6-astra. Cross-family calibration scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, 25/27 for batch 28 (both divergences repaired in v0.62.0), and 26/27 for batch 30 (the divergence adjudicated faithful). The next cross-family spot-audit runs at this batch's workshop review, including a pre-repair probe on preserved baseline prompts; its result is pending. The three batch-31 Limitations repairs described above ride in this release following that workshop's review.
v0.64.0 v3 backfill batch 31 (2026-09-06, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 59 issue 1 and volume 58 issue 6, 29 notes total to v3, all through v2 augmentation. The record total remains 1,167; the census shifts from 61 v1 / 305 v2 / 801 v3 to 61 v1 / 276 v2 / 830 v3. All 29 notes validate. The initial augmentation guard passed all 29; the final guard passes 12 and flags exactly the registered legacy sections repaired in 17 notes. Protected frontmatter, historical extraction provenance, and the three new v3 sections are unchanged during repairs.

First-pass blind 9-field audits returned 249 SUPPORTED, 11 PARTIAL, and 1 UNSUPPORTED out of 261 judgments. Parent source review produced 24 legacy-field repairs across 17 notes, including 17 fields initially scored SUPPORTED. Repairs correct variable roles, theoretical versus empirical support, and unsupported practical or future-research scope. Every repaired note received a fresh blind full-note audit; all 24 repaired fields are now SUPPORTED. The final state is 257 SUPPORTED and 4 accepted PARTIALs out of 261, with 0 UNSUPPORTED and 0 CONTRADICTED. All 29 notes pass overall with final note and source hashes. Graffin's Limitations and Lanzolla's Future Research retain faithful claims whose supporting passages are absent from fitted audit inputs. Shani's and Ayyagari's Limitations retain source-grounded sample scope qualifications after two-round framing disagreements at 0% strip. All four acceptances have reconstruction proofs and subsequent source readings in the private ledger.

Eggers's Data & Measures received UNSUPPORTED in two standard audits because fitting removed three appendix methods facts at a 12% strip ratio. With explicit user approval, a fresh blind auditor received the complete raw source and returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. The official report was assembled with the audit tool's functions and explicit unabridged-input provenance; the original verdicts remain preserved. The faithful note, tools, and workflow documents were unchanged by this exception.

Bibliographic frontmatter is byte-identical to the HEAD baseline, so scoped CrossRef was skipped. Sequential SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX rebuilds reconcile to 1,167 records, with unchanged paper types and byte-identical BibTeX. Full-library validation passed 1,167/1,167; direct regressions passed 22/22 for PDF-text fitting and 15/15 for augmentation.

This is the second batch run end-to-end on gpt-6-astra (GPT-6 Astra) for augmentation and audit. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol, and 30–31 gpt-6-astra. Cross-family calibration scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, 25/27 for batch 28 (both divergences repaired in v0.62.0), and 26/27 for batch 30 (the divergence adjudicated faithful under strip blindness). No spot-audit is scheduled for this batch's review; the next calibration runs at batch 32's workshop review.
v0.63.0 v3 backfill batch 30 (2026-09-05, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 59 issues 3 and 2, 31 notes total to the v3 schema, all through v2 augmentation. The record total remains 1,167; the corpus shifts from 61 v1 / 336 v2 / 770 v3 to 61 v1 / 305 v2 / 801 v3. All 31 notes validate. The initial augmentation guard passed all 31; the final guard passes 16 and flags exactly the 18 documented legacy-field repairs across 15 notes. All three new sections, augmentation provenance, and protected frontmatter remain unchanged during those repairs.

The first full blind 9-field rubric-v2 audit returned 268 SUPPORTED, 10 PARTIAL, and 1 UNSUPPORTED out of 279 verdicts. Parent source review produced 18 legacy-field repairs across 15 notes, including 11 fields initially scored SUPPORTED: moderator and mediation roles, the hypothesized model, an unmeasured cognitive explanation, practical-implication audiences and scope, limitations, and inferred future-research agendas. Fresh blind full-note re-audits of all 15 repaired notes returned 134 SUPPORTED and 1 accepted PARTIAL out of 135. The final state is 275 SUPPORTED and 4 accepted PARTIALs out of 279, with 0 UNSUPPORTED and 0 CONTRADICTED; all 31 notes pass overall with final note and source hashes. The accepted PARTIALs are Bertrand's Future Research and Key Findings, Holloway's Data & Measures, and Khanna's Future Research: reconstructed audit inputs omit the relevant discussion or appendix passages, while parent reading of the recovered raw text confirms that the claims are faithful. Those fields remain unchanged. Tracey's initially PARTIAL Limitations was likewise retained after source verification and scored SUPPORTED in the full re-audit required by its separate Future Research repair.

Desai (2016), AMJ 59-3, is retracted. Its new Key Findings section explicitly opens: “This article has been retracted; the following summarizes its originally reported findings.” The note is retained as a record of the retracted article; see the publisher's retraction notice. Bibliographic frontmatter and paper types are unchanged; scoped CrossRef was skipped after field-by-field byte comparisons against the baseline. Sequential SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX rebuilds reconcile to 1,167 records; BibTeX is byte-identical, with only SQLite and CSV changed. Full-library validation passed 1,167/1,167, and the direct regressions passed 22/22 for PDF-text fitting and 15/15 for augmentation verification.

This is the first backfill batch run end-to-end on gpt-6-astra (GPT-6 Astra) for augmentation and audit, opening stamp era 30. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol, and 30 gpt-6-astra. Cross-family spot-audits scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, and 25/27 for batch 28; both batch-28 divergences were repaired in v0.62.0. Batch 30's workshop review will run the next spot-audit as a new-model calibration; no result is yet available.
v0.62.0 v3 backfill batch 29 (2026-09-04, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 59 issues 5 and 4, 32 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations — and carries one calibration-driven repair to the already-v3 Luo (2017) note from batch 28. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 336 v2, and 770 v3. All 33 touched notes passed validate_note.py; the final verify_augmentation.py sweep passes the 28 target notes with no legacy repair and flags exactly the four target notes with documented legacy-field repairs, plus Luo's two authorized legacy sections. The first full blind 9-field rubric-v2 audit returned 294/297 SUPPORTED, 3 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. Source verification produced four scoped legacy repairs across four batch notes: Argyres's invented founder/ investor prescription was removed; Bunderson's practical implication was narrowed over two repair rounds to the paper's explicit ideal relational structure; Eisenhardt's inferred methodological future-research sentence was removed; and Martin's manipulated narrative factors were no longer mislabeled as moderators despite a first-pass SUPPORTED verdict. The first repair re-audits returned 35/36 SUPPORTED plus one PARTIAL; Bunderson's second repair returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. The final state is 297 / 297 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 33 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes in scope).

The workshop's batch-28 cross-family spot-audit identified scope drift in Luo's Practical Implication and Future Research. Raw-text adjudication showed that the paper frames speed-versus-quality decoupling as implications for research on regulation and practice diffusion, not practitioner advice, and explicitly calls for comparisons in other settings and longer-window or priority-change designs, not a mature-market research agenda. Those two fields were repaired without changing Luo's frontmatter or provenance and passed a fresh blind 9/9 audit. Before batch-note audit dispatch, literal named-entity self-checking also corrected one nonliteral proper-name form in Krause's draft Data & Measures field. Bibliographic frontmatter and paper types are unchanged, scoped CrossRef was therefore skipped, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the tenth such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24–29 gpt-5.6-sol. Cross-family spot-audits scored 27/27 for batch 16, 27/27 for batch 24, and 25/27 for batch 28; the two batch-28 divergences were repaired in this release, and no spot-audit is scheduled for batch 29's review.
v0.61.0 v3 backfill batch 28 (2026-08-31, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 60 issue 1 and volume 59 issue 6, 32 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 368 v2, and 738 v3. All 32 notes passed validate_note.py; the final verify_augmentation.py sweep passes 23 notes and flags exactly the nine notes with documented legacy- field repairs. The first full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit returned 275/288 SUPPORTED, 12 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 1 CONTRADICTED. Source verification produced 17 scoped repairs across 10 notes: Desai's Study 3 factor and Study 3/4 data; Hajro's effectiveness measure; Wang's practical, limitation, and future-research claims; Cobb's moderator scope; George's editorial research agenda; Heese's future-research sentinel, moderator role, reporting-table count, and limitation scope; Kim's limitations and future-research sentinel; Olsen's proposed natural- experiment design; Vakili's mediator/moderator roles; and Zhao's categorical- inequality wording. The first repair re-audits returned 86/90 SUPPORTED plus four PARTIAL; Heese's three newly surfaced factual nuances were repaired in round two and returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. The final state is 287 / 288 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 verified-faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 32 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes). The sole accepted PARTIAL is Desai's Future Research: exact fitted-text reconstruction shows that interleaved-reference stripping removed 16.38% of the raw text, including the supporting authenticity and strategic-display passage; read-after-proof review confirmed the field is faithful, so it was not edited. Before audit dispatch, literal-anchor and named-entity checks corrected six formulations across five notes. The three repairs in new v3 fields had distinct causes — multi-study attribution, measure-role framing, and a narrative-versus-reporting-table count — so the repeated-new-field stop rule did not trigger. Bibliographic frontmatter and paper types are unchanged, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the ninth such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24–28 gpt-5.6-sol. This batch's workshop review runs the recurring cross-family calibration; the prior batch-16 and batch-24 calibrations both scored 27/27 agreement.
v0.60.0 v3 backfill batch 27 (2026-08-31, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 60 issues 3 and 2, 32 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 400 v2, and 706 v3. All 32 notes passed validate_note.py; the final verify_augmentation.py sweep passes 28 notes and flags exactly the four notes with documented legacy-field repairs. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 286 / 288 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 2 verified-faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 32 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes). Round 1 returned 281/288 SUPPORTED and 7 PARTIAL. Source verification produced five scoped repairs: Aranda's practical implication was confined to critical assessment of success; Farh's Data & Measures now distinguishes 168 complete individual observations from 41 teams; Wiedner's future-research agenda was narrowed to the paper's explicit cross-practice and neglected-practice calls; Ellis's unsupported mental-model-gap prescription was removed; and Heaphy's practical implication now reflects institutionalized mediating capacity without claiming shared understandings. All five repaired notes returned 45/45 SUPPORTED in fresh blind full-note re-audits. The two accepted PARTIALs are Gomulya's limitations and future-research fields: exact audit- input reconstruction proves that interleaved-reference stripping hid the supporting passages, and reading the recovered raw text confirms both fields are faithful, so neither was edited. Before audit dispatch, literal-anchor checks corrected two two-column splice anchors; a per-phase review corrected Heaphy's interview counts; and exact named-entity verification narrowed six new-field source or scale names to literal raw-text forms. The two splice- anchor validation failures shared one cause but remained below the stop-rule threshold of three; the Heaphy count issue was distinct, so no stop rule was triggered. Bibliographic frontmatter and paper types are unchanged, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the eighth such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24–27 gpt-5.6-sol. The recurring cross-family spot- audit most recently ran at batch 24's workshop review with 27/27 agreement, matching batch 16; none is scheduled for batch 27, and the next calibration is expected at batch 28's workshop review.
v0.59.0 v3 backfill batch 26 (2026-08-29, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 60 issues 5 and 4, 32 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 432 v2, and 674 v3. All 32 notes passed validate_note.py; the final verify_augmentation.py sweep passes 24 notes and flags exactly the eight notes with documented legacy-field repairs. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 286 / 288 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 2 verified-faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 32 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes). Round 1 returned 283/288 SUPPORTED and 5 PARTIAL. Source verification produced nine scoped legacy repairs across eight notes: corrections to moderated-path wiring and contingency attribution; removal of invented generalizability, future-agenda, and practitioner-prescription claims; reversal of a transferability error; restoration of the paper's construct wording; and confinement of a practical implication to syndicate formation. All eight repaired notes returned 72/72 SUPPORTED in fresh blind full-note re-audits. The two accepted PARTIALs are proven interleaved-reference strip-loss cases: the fitted audit text hid Lee's managerial guidance about team composition and negotiation conditions, and Schaumberg's future-research call concerning women's leadership efficacy; reading the recovered raw passages confirmed both note fields were faithful, so neither was edited. A pre-audit exact-anchor sweep corrected Lawrence's normalized two-column-splice anchor. The independent pre-publication provenance review then found that Malesky's interim 2013 PCI survey source-name phrase had zero literal raw-text hits; the wording was narrowed to the exact source name PCI survey, its prompt was regenerated, and a fresh blind full-note audit returned 9/9 SUPPORTED. No repeated new-field or validation cause reached the stop threshold. Bibliographic frontmatter and paper types are unchanged, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the seventh such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24–26 gpt-5.6-sol. The recurring cross-family spot-audit most recently ran at batch 24's workshop review with 27/27 agreement, matching batch 16; none is scheduled for batch 26's review.
v0.58.0 v3 backfill batch 25 (2026-08-29, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 61 issue 1 and volume 60 issue 6, 31 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 464 v2, and 642 v3. All 31 notes passed validate_note.py; the final verify_augmentation.py sweep passes 27 notes and flags exactly the four notes with documented legacy-field repairs. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 279 / 279 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 31 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes). Round 1 returned 272/279 SUPPORTED, 6 PARTIAL, and 1 UNSUPPORTED. Source verification produced seven initial prose-field repairs across six notes; fresh blind re-audits surfaced two further factual legacy nuances, both repaired and returned 18/18 SUPPORTED in a third round. The nine repaired fields corrected survey timing, a cross-study scale, moderated-path attribution, invented rigidity and prerequisite claims, an implied rather than explicit future agenda, unsupported data-source names, and a misidentified boundary condition. A final exact-substring sweep also caught one Glaser findings anchor that normalized a two-column splice; it was replaced with a four-word literal fragment and the full note re-audited 9/9 SUPPORTED. The three first-round non-SUPPORTED Data & Measures calls had distinct causes, and the single anchor defect did not form a repeated new-field cluster, so the stop rule was not triggered. Bibliographic frontmatter remained field-for-field identical to HEAD, paper types were unchanged, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the sixth such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24–25 gpt-5.6-sol. The recurring cross-family spot-audit most recently ran at batch 24's workshop review with 27/27 agreement, matching batch 16; none is scheduled for batch 25's review.
v0.57.0 v3 backfill batch 24 (2026-08-24, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 61, issues 3 and 2, 31 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 495 v2, and 611 v3. All 31 notes passed validate_note.py and their initial verify_augmentation.py diff-guards. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 278 / 279 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 verified-faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 31 notes overall pass, with zero stale hashes). Round 1 returned 266/279 SUPPORTED with 13 PARTIALs. Source verification produced 14 initial scoped legacy-field repairs across 12 notes; fresh blind re-audits surfaced three further legacy wording nuances, bringing the total to 17. Each was repaired, and the three final re-audits returned 27/27 SUPPORTED. No repair landed in a new v3 field, so the repeated-new-field stop rule was not approached. The sole accepted PARTIAL is Foulk's future_research: exact audit-input reconstruction shows that fit_pdf_text_for_audit removed 47,339 of 147,118 raw characters (32.18%), including the raw-text phrases “motivation and self-monitoring” and “narcissism and self-concern.” Reading the recovered passage confirmed that it explicitly proposes those moderators, so the note is faithful and the auditor was blind to the interleaved-reference tail. Bibliographic frontmatter remained field-for-field identical to HEAD, paper types were unchanged, and library.bib regenerated byte-identically (only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for augmentation and audit, the fifth such backfill batch. Provenance eras are batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, 20–23 claude-opus-5, and 24 gpt-5.6-sol; this batch's workshop review includes the recurring cross-family spot-audit (the batch-16 calibration scored 27/27 agreement).
v0.56.0 v3 backfill batch 23 (2026-08-12, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 61, issues 5 and 4, 31 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations, and the largest batch of the backfill so far. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 526 v2, and 580 v3. All 31 notes passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard, 30 of them on the first attempt (one note used its single permitted self-fix cycle). Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 275 / 279 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 4 faithful PARTIALs, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 31 notes overall pass). Round 1 returned 272/279 SUPPORTED with 7 PARTIALs; six fields across six notes were source-verified drift and were repaired, and five of the six returned SUPPORTED in fresh blind re-audits. Three repairs share the recurring legacy class — a limitation or direction the paper never states, in two cases against the paper's own text: Baer's Limitations claimed Study 2's laboratory scenario limited generalization, where the paper lists that design under Strengths and says the two studies' consistency gives "more confidence in the robustness and generalizability of our findings"; Kotha's Limitations said a one-TTO design "limits direct generalization", where the paper speculates that "the theoretical principles from our framework will generally apply"; and Dumas's Future Research recast an ideal-worker discussion claim as a research agenda in place of the paper's own stated call. Deken's Mechanism Process conflated the paper's six periods with its eight strategic configurations (C1–C8) — the note's own new v3 sections already had it right. Gupta's Practical Implication addressed "leaders and boards", where "board" appears in the paper only as a CEO-duality control variable and in reference entries; that field had scored SUPPORTED and was repaired under the two-channel rule after parent verification against the raw text. Only one repair landed in a new v3 field — Dai's Data & Measures inverted the paper's stated sign convention for change in confidence ("negative values indicated that participants became less confident") — so the repeated-new-field stop rule was never approached, and no sign or direction reversal appeared anywhere else in the batch. The four remaining PARTIALs are accepted, not edited. Three are the interleaved-REFERENCES class, each proven by reconstructing the exact text the auditor received: König's key_findings at a 19.8% strip ratio, and both of Kotha's at 14.6% — below the 15% caution threshold — confirming for a third consecutive batch that the flag routes attention rather than bounding the class. The fourth is different in kind: Deken's future_research strips 0.0%, so both auditors saw identical text, yet round 1 scored it SUPPORTED and round 2 PARTIAL, disputing only framing; it was accepted under the repair convergence bound. Two writer-channel concerns closed without a fix after parent verification, one of which averted an over-repair — Hubbard's paper does discuss generalizing to "another expert stakeholder group". library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5 under Claude Code for both augmentation and audit, the fourth consecutive batch in that stamp era; backfill provenance stamps now span batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, and 20–23 claude-opus-5.
v0.55.0 v3 backfill batch 22 (2026-08-06, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 62 issue 1 and volume 61 issue 6, 27 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 557 v2, and 549 v3. All 27 notes passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard, 26 of them on the first attempt (one note used its single permitted self-fix cycle). Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 238 / 243 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 5 faithful PARTIALs, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 27 notes overall pass). Round 1 returned 234/243 SUPPORTED with 9 PARTIALs; four were source-verified drift and were repaired, and all four repaired fields came back SUPPORTED in fresh blind re-audits. Three repairs share the recurring legacy class — a limitation or future direction the paper never states, in all three cases against the paper's own text: Jia's Limitations said the findings may not generalize to privately owned firms where the paper states its theory "should, in principle, be applicable" to them; Schilpzand's Future Research recommended actigraphy where the paper raises it only to conclude that "Barnes (2012) even recommended self-rated sleep as the most appropriate and useful methodology"; and Fini's Future Research recast a boundary condition the paper calls "rare" and "likely to be met in most settings" as a research agenda. The fourth fixed a direction garble: Simsek's Mechanism Process summary said research trails practice, where the editorial says "When impact trails research" and "When impact leads research" — the note's own bullets already had it right. The five remaining PARTIALs are accepted, not edited: all are the interleaved-REFERENCES class, where a REFERENCES heading begins in column 2 while column 1 is still running Discussion prose, so the fitted audit input discards faithful text. Each was proven by reconstructing the exact text the auditor received — Wang's three verdicts at the batch's highest 19.3% strip ratio, plus Li's and Simsek's at 14.9% and 13.0%, both below the 15% caution threshold, confirming again that the flag routes attention rather than bounding the class. All 27 hypotheses and 26 of 27 key_findings verdicts were SUPPORTED in round one, with no sign or direction reversal anywhere in the batch, and all four repairs landed in legacy fields, so the repeated-new-field stop rule was never approached. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5 under Claude Code for both augmentation and audit, the third consecutive batch in that stamp era; backfill provenance stamps now span batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, and 20–22 claude-opus-5.
v0.54.0 v3 backfill batch 21 (2026-08-05, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 62, issues 3 and 2, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 584 v2, and 522 v3. All 25 notes passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard, 24 of them on the first attempt (one note used its single permitted self-fix cycle). Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 224 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass). Round 1 returned 217/225 SUPPORTED with 8 PARTIALs; seven were source-verified drift and were repaired, and all 63 verdicts across the seven fresh blind re-audits came back SUPPORTED. Six repairs share one legacy class — a limitation, future direction, or audience the paper never states, in three cases against the paper's own text: Dutt's Future Research asked whether the findings hold in pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and ICT where the paper states they do apply there; Weber's Limitations claimed the experiments cannot reproduce real contract complexity where the paper's conclusion touts experimental "precision and control"; and Zuzul's Limitations added a prevalence caveat where the paper argues its cases' differences "amplify the generalizability". The seventh repair is the batch's only new-field content error: Shi's Data & Measures credited the Heckman selection model with addressing the non-random assignment of language style matching, which the paper assigns to IPTW — its Heckman first stage predicts "whether a firm undertakes M&As in a year". The single remaining PARTIAL is accepted, not edited: Sherf's Data & Measures faithfully reports an Appendix A pilot (202 managers via Prolific, 263 via Qualtrics) that is present in the raw text but absent from the fitted audit input, confirmed by reconstructing the exact text the auditor received — the interleaved-REFERENCES class at the batch's highest 22.3% strip ratio. All 25 hypotheses and all 25 key_findings verdicts were SUPPORTED in round one, with no sign or direction reversal anywhere in the batch, so the repeated-new-field stop rule was never approached. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5 under Claude Code for both augmentation and audit, the second consecutive batch in that stamp era; backfill provenance stamps now span batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, and 20–21 claude-opus-5.
v0.53.0 v3 backfill batch 20 (2026-08-04, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 62, issues 5 and 4, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 609 v2, and 497 v3. All 25 notes passed validate_note.py, and all 25 augmentation deltas passed the initial verify_augmentation.py guard on their first attempt, with no self-fix cycle used anywhere in the batch. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 217 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 8 faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass). Two evidence-based legacy-field repairs cleared fresh blind re-audits at 9/9 SUPPORTED each: Lee's Mechanism Process had labelled peer learning a same-level mediator where the paper's footnote 7 states the model "does not depict mediation process at the same level", and Sgourev's Practical Implication had given only the threat half of a managerial argument the paper frames as "both the opportunities and threats". The 8 remaining PARTIALs are accepted, not edited: four (Wang ×2, Shea ×2) are faithful claims verified in raw text that the audit input discards where a REFERENCES heading occupies column 2 while column 1 still runs Discussion prose, and a fifth (De Stefano) is the same class at a 13.9% strip ratio, below the 15% suspicion threshold — a reminder that the detector is a routing aid, not a floor. All 75 verdicts on the three new v3 fields were SUPPORTED, so the repeated-new-field stop rule was never approached. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch returns to claude-opus-5 under Claude Code for both augmentation and audit, after four consecutive batches (16–19) run end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol; backfill provenance stamps now span batches 01–07 claude-opus-4-8, 08–15 claude-opus-5, 16–19 gpt-5.6-sol, and 20 claude-opus-5.
v0.52.0 v3 backfill batch 19 (2026-08-03, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 63, issue 1 and volume 62, issue 6, 27 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 634 v2, and 472 v3. All 27 notes passed validate_note.py; all augmentation deltas passed the initial verify_augmentation.py guard without a gate failure. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 242 / 243 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 27 notes overall pass). Four evidence-based legacy-field repairs across three notes cleared fresh blind re-audits. Lee's founder-succession Limitations remains an accepted PARTIAL because the fitted audit input cuts the left-column discussion at an interleaved REFERENCES heading, while the retained raw text at lines 888–925 directly supports the sample-selection, archival-proxy, alternative-explanation, and measurement-error limitations. All 81 verdicts on the three new v3 fields were SUPPORTED, and the repeated-new-field stop rule was not triggered. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This is the fourth consecutive backfill batch run end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for both augmentation and audit. The recurring workshop cross-family spot-audit applies; the next calibration runs at the batch-20 review.
v0.51.0 v3 backfill batch 18 (2026-08-02, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 63, issues 3 and 2, 24 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 661 v2, and 445 v3. All 24 notes passed validate_note.py; all augmentation deltas passed the initial verify_augmentation.py guard without a gate failure. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 215 / 216 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 faithful PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 24 notes overall pass). Nine evidence-based edit operations repaired eight note-field pairs across six notes in two repair rounds; fresh blind re-audits cleared every repair. Beckman's Future Research remains an accepted PARTIAL because the fitted audit input cuts at an interleaved REFERENCES heading, while the retained raw text at lines 1248–1260 directly supports the gender-research rationale. All 72 verdicts on the three new v3 fields were SUPPORTED, and the repeated-new-field stop rule was not triggered. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This is the third backfill batch run end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for both augmentation and audit. The recurring workshop cross-family spot-audit applies; the next calibration is due around batch 20.
v0.50.0 v3 backfill batch 17 (2026-08-02, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 63, issues 5 and 4, 24 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 685 v2, and 421 v3. All 24 notes passed validate_note.py and the initial verify_augmentation.py delta guard without a gate failure. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 216 / 216 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 24 notes overall pass). Seven evidence-based repairs narrowed legacy prose across four notes in one repair round: Ody-Brasier's Practical Implication, Limitations, and Future Research; Yi's Limitations; Bourgoin's Research Question and Future Research; and Cloutier's Future Research. All four notes cleared fresh blind re-audit, so no PARTIAL was accepted. All 72 verdicts on the three new v3 fields were SUPPORTED, and the repeated-new-field stop rule was not triggered. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This is the second backfill batch run end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for both augmentation and audit. The recurring workshop cross-family spot-audit applies; batch 16's review scored 27 / 27 agreement.
v0.49.0 v3 backfill batch 16 (2026-08-01, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 64, issue 1 and volume 63, issue 6, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 709 v2, and 397 v3. All 25 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt with zero self-fix cycles. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: the final state is 225 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass), after five evidence-based legacy-field repairs across four notes in two repair rounds and three audit rounds. The round-1 repairs removed inferred practitioner directives from Abdurakhmonov, Cappellaro, and Pierce and narrowed Taeuscher's Limitations to the paper's stated inability to measure legitimacy directly. A fresh auditor then identified one new Cappellaro Future Research nuance; it was narrowed to the paper's explicit calls and cleared in round 3. No new v3 field drew a non-SUPPORTED verdict, so the repeated-new-field stop rule was not triggered. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This is the first backfill batch run end-to-end on gpt-5.6-sol for both augmentation and audit; batches 01–07 recorded claude-opus-4-8, and batches 08–15 recorded claude-opus-5. A cross-family spot-audit follows at the workshop review.
v0.48.0 v3 backfill batch 15 (2026-08-01, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 64, issue 3 and volume 64, issue 2, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 734 v2, 372 v3. The upgrade phase was the cleanest of the backfill so far: all 25 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt, with zero self-fix cycles. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit, and this batch is the first of the backfill to finish spotless — 225 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass), after nineteen evidence-based repairs across ten notes in three repair rounds and four audit rounds. No residual PARTIAL had to be accepted and documented; every one of the thirteen found in round 1 was cleared by repair. Six of those thirteen were the recurring no-practice-section scope drift this 2021 cohort keeps producing — a pre-scan run before the audits found that 14 of the 25 papers contain no practical-implication marker at all, and five of the six drifted fields sat on flagged papers. Jacobs, Jiang, Naumovska, Reinecke and Zhelyazkov each prescribed advice to audiences their papers never address; Myers listed "clients" as an external learning source when the paper's own five are faculty, industry experts, other teams, second-year MBA students and personal network contacts, clients being the project sponsors who rate team performance. Three landed on the new v3 sections and each had a distinct cause: Liu credited the China Stock Market and Accounting Research database with ownership information when the paper searched it for an alternative political-linkage robustness measure; Opper described M8–M12 as uniformly adding planning dummies and their interactions when the paper builds them stepwise; and Reinecke misreported two of the paper's three "revealing case" reasons, which a page break had split across columns. Wolfson presented HR information systems as a practice tool when the paper raises them only as a future-research archive, and Zipay grouped moral identity under antecedents of leniency when the paper names it as a personality trait moderating reactions to leniency. Three of round 2's five remaining PARTIALs were introduced by the repairs themselves and were caught only because every repaired note is re-audited — the strongest case yet for the assemble-then-repair-then-re-audit ordering. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 through 14 did.
v0.47.0 v3 backfill batch 14 (2026-07-31, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 64, issue 5 and volume 64, issue 4, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 759 v2, 347 v3. The upgrade phase was the fourth consecutive clean one: 24 of 25 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt, the single self-fix being a cosmetic Cronbach-alpha symbol alignment inside Hill's own newly inserted Data & Measures text. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 224 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 1 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass), after seven evidence-based repairs across six notes in three repair rounds. All six of the round-1 PARTIALs fell on legacy prose fields and none on the three new v3 sections — the cleanest new-field result of the backfill so far. Tang's Practical Implication prescribed what "firms should" and "managers seeking ambidextrous strategy should" do for a paper in which none of "practical implication", "implications for practice", "managers should" or "firms should" occurs even once; Methot's Future Research recast the paper's cross-cultural and expatriate practice contribution as a research agenda; Dyer's Theoretical Contribution credited exploratory salary-band and equity evidence with producing a "zone of misaligned incentives" the paper explicitly calls an untested "logical conclusion from the theory"; Ruebottom's Limitations inverted a premise, cautioning against generalizing to "all stigmatized industries" where the paper states "we expect that all stigmatized industries will have opportunities within them"; and Bettinazzi's Mechanism Process both labelled four variables "moderators" for a design that estimates no interaction terms at all — it compares coefficients across paired models with Wald tests — and attributed to selloff cost an argument the paper runs on the cost of resolving conflicts internally. The seventh repair did not come from the audit: Bain's augmentation agent flagged, under the flag-don't-fix contract, that "Across studies, the effects held for promotive and prohibitive voice and for both men and women" over-reached, and although the auditor had scored that field SUPPORTED, source verification upheld the agent — voice type appears eleven times in Study 1 and not once in Studies 2 or 3. One residual PARTIAL is accepted and documented rather than edited. It is Sitzmann's Future Research, the interleaved-references truncation class: the REFERENCES heading sits atop column 2 at line 1340 while column 1 still runs Future Research prose, so the strip discarded 24.6% of the paper, and the flagged call for research on how "pornography consumption and rape affect the gender wage gap" verifies almost verbatim in the raw text. Batch 11's signal held for a fifth consecutive batch: wherever a legacy field and a newly written v3 section covered the same fact — Dyer and Bettinazzi — the new section was right and the legacy field wrong. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 through 13 did.
v0.46.0 v3 backfill batch 13 (2026-07-30, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 65, issue 1 and volume 64, issue 6, 26 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 784 v2, 322 v3. The upgrade phase was the third consecutive clean one: all 26 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt, with no self-fix cycles. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 229 / 234 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 5 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 26 notes overall pass), after twenty-one evidence-based repairs across sixteen notes in three repair rounds — the heaviest repair load of the backfill to date. Fifteen of the twenty-one repairs fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard. Practical-implication scope drift was the dominant legacy class, with six instances, three of them on papers that have no practical-implications section at all: Lee prescribed that "executives and directors should treat CSR-oriented unrest as strongly informative" for a paper in which the phrase "practical implication" never appears, Guo advised executives and investor-relations teams for a paper that names IR teams only as the authors of the script, and Yu addressed "managers and policymakers" and "alliance partners" where neither phrase occurs. Post re-attributed to CEOs and boards an instruction the paper gives to "female executives invited to join an all-male TMT"; Baba addressed "governments and other central actors" where the paper's three crucial points address "peripheral actors such as the Crees"; and Wang credited professional associations with a broadening of blame the paper attributes to the government. The multi-study support-pattern class recurred for the third batch running, in Burgess's Mechanism Process ("converge on these linkages" for a design in which only Study 1 tested all six hypotheses), and Lee's Limitations inverted a premise outright, claiming causal inference rested on 2SLS where the paper concludes its tests make "the 2SLS regression unnecessary". Six repairs touched new v3 fields, five of them Data & Measures with five distinct causes — Dushnitsky mis-explained a sample-size drop that Table 3 attributes to an interaction rather than a control present in all six models, Post reversed two dictionary credits across a column break under a "respectively", Vuori mislabelled Table 1's interview counts as informant counts, Mikolon added an unstated temporal-separation inference, and Schaubroeck overlooked the paper's explicit "Except for ..." clause on variable overlap. Five residual PARTIALs are accepted and documented rather than edited. Two are Guo's, and are the interleaved-references truncation class: its REFERENCES heading sits atop column 2 at line 1357 while column 1 still runs Future Research prose, so the strip discarded 16.8% of the paper, and both flagged claims — the data-availability constraint and the verbal/nonverbal delivery-attribute list — verify verbatim in the raw text. Two are Wang's, one a framing nuance whose content the auditor conceded is true, the other an auditor locality error: the paper does discuss "the accounting profession in the U.S. and the U.K." in the same future-research thread the note compresses. The fifth is Dushnitsky's Key Findings, where the paper's own Figure 3B description contradicts itself and the note follows the paper's five separate statements that the effect is stronger for younger startups. Batch 11's signal held for the third consecutive batch and more strongly: in every case where a legacy field and a newly written v3 section covered the same fact — Burgess, Kuhnel, Frey and Lee — the new section was right and the legacy field wrong. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 through 12 did.
v0.45.0 v3 backfill batch 12 (2026-07-30, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 65, issue 3 and issue 2, 26 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 810 v2, 296 v3. The upgrade phase matched batch 11's clean run: all 26 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt, with no self-fix cycles. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 232 / 234 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 2 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 26 notes overall pass), after nine evidence-based repairs across seven notes in three repair rounds. Issue 2 was the cleanest issue of the backfill to date, arriving at 116 / 117 SUPPORTED with a single flagged field. Seven of the nine repairs fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard. Two documented failure classes recurred, both as multi-study support-pattern overstatement: Tewfik's Mechanism Process said the indirect effect through an other-focused orientation "held across all four studies" when Study 1 "did not measure the hypothesized mediator", and Semadeni's said GEE models "support all six hypotheses" when the paper's own Results describe Hypothesis 5 as receiving "partial support" and Table 2 flags the coefficient at p < 0.1. Gibson reproduced the batch-10 premise class in reverse, listing the Indigenous Australian setting as a limitation where the paper's "Transferability to Other Contexts" section argues the framework "likely has applicability to many efforts at social change"; Hein attributed a "constrains generalizability" framing to a paper whose text contains no form of the word; Lucas extrapolated a call to "more directly measure" its authentication processes; and Tewfik's Limitations carried two unstated inferences and then, in a third round, an over-attribution the paper confines to "ultimate interpersonal evaluations". Two repairs touched new v3 fields, with unrelated causes: Fang's Data & Measures called both studies cross-sectional where the paper describes the NLSY97 as "a longitudinal study of a nationally representative cohort", and Martin's attributed the class-perception chi-squares to a within-study check when they come from the non-preregistered 267-participant pretest of footnote 3. Two residual PARTIALs are accepted and documented rather than edited, both on Fang and both instances of the interleaved-references truncation class identified in batch 11: Fang's REFERENCES heading sits atop column 2 at 77.9% while column 1 still runs its Limitations and Future Research prose, so the strip discarded 22% of the paper, and every flagged claim — omitted-variable bias, the uncontrolled cognitive-ability measure, the additional-variables and incumbent-composition future-research calls — verifies verbatim in the raw text. Batch 11's signal held again: in each case where a legacy field and a newly written v3 section covered the same fact, the new section was right and the legacy field wrong — Tewfik's and Semadeni's new Key Findings both stated the support pattern correctly while their legacy prose overstated it. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 through 11 did.
v0.44.0 v3 backfill batch 11 (2026-07-30, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 65, issue 5 and issue 4, 25 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 836 v2, 270 v3. The upgrade phase was the cleanest of the backfill so far: all 25 augmentations passed validate_note.py and the verify_augmentation.py diff-guard on the first attempt, with no self-fix cycles. Each touched note then passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 218 / 225 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 7 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 25 notes overall pass), after fifteen evidence-based repairs across thirteen notes in two repair rounds. Thirteen of the fifteen fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard. Both documented Mechanism Process failure classes appear again. Matusik misstated what the paper predicted, narrating the coordination gap as one that "persists across episodes" when H5 predicted the gap would increase and the results "did not support Hypothesis 5". Two misstated how a model is wired: Solomon claimed the self-regulatory cascade "does not fire" under sustained high accountability, where the paper has counterfactual thinking and regret still occurring and only the reversal blocked; and Zhang claimed a leader-vision moderation "supported across three studies, including a cross-lagged design that rules out reverse causation", where Study 1 never measured leader vision and the cross-lagged model itself reports a significant reverse path. Raffaelli transposed two names, putting Hayek on Breguet's management committee where the paper has "Hayek inviting Biver to serve on SMH's board and on Breguet's management committee". Scope drift on Practical Implication was the batch's dominant legacy pattern, at four instances — Koppman, Shepherd, Williams and Mannucci each addressed prescriptions to audiences their papers never name (managers, NGOs and policymakers, support organizations, practitioners); all four were narrowed to the papers' own stated scope. The remaining legacy repairs corrected an unstated inference in Awate's Limitations, a cross-study misattribution in Zhang's Limitations, a context ("television") absent from Koppman's future-research sentence, a gloss in Jin's Practical Implication that inverted the paper's magnitude-over-direction finding, and Kumar's attachment of the paper's coined term "shadow of the broker" to the wrong construct. Two repairs touched new v3 fields, with unrelated causes: Eleazar's Data & Measures sourced three lawsuit controls to VentureXpert when they come from the Federal Judicial Center database, and Doyle's Key Findings said an interaction crossed p < .05 "only when covariates were added" when footnote 10 reports it also reaching significance under the preregistered exclusion plan. Seven residual PARTIALs are accepted and documented rather than edited. Three are verification artifacts on faithful notes caused by a newly identified audit-prompt truncation class: in two-column extraction the real REFERENCES heading can sit atop column 2 while column 1 still carries Discussion prose, so the strip discards the interleaved tail — Ferns lost 25% of its text and Pamphile 18%, and both notes' flagged claims verify verbatim in the raw text. Lazar's Data & Measures faithfully reproduces the paper's own sample statements, the discrepancy the auditor found being the paper's own arithmetic. The other three are framing nuances on legacy fields whose substance verifies in the source, two of them re-scorings of fields a prior independent round passed — all accepted under the repair convergence bound. Notably, in every case where a legacy field and a newly written v3 section covered the same fact, the new section was right and the legacy field wrong: writing Hypotheses, Data & Measures and Key Findings forces a close read of the results tables, so the backfill is functioning as a corpus audit of pre-v3 prose. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 through 10 did.
v0.43.0 v3 backfill batch 10 (2026-07-29, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 66, issue 1 and volume 65, issue 6, 26 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations, and the largest batch of the backfill so far. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 861 v2, 245 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 228 / 234 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 6 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 26 notes overall pass), after thirteen evidence-based repairs across eight notes in three repair rounds. Twelve of the thirteen fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard, and this is the first batch in which both documented Mechanism Process failure classes appear together. Three repairs misstated what the paper predicted: Dimotakis narrated "negative incidents are unconditionally aversive" as the theory when that is the result (H7 and H8 predicted the conditionality, which held only for positive incidents); Ong presented an unbufferable-demands claim as a prediction where the paper says "we posit this as an empirical research question"; and Xu (65-6) called a downturn "partially borne out" that occurred in neither study, the paper noting "the absence of the predicted negative effects at the very high levels of leader perfectionism". Two more misstated how a model is wired: Chan collapsed two of the three value-moderating practices and lost the paper's "covertly using value-driven resources", and Dwertmann attributed causal reasoning to stereotype updating (the paper assigns it to the employee-to-organization link) and motive moderation to reputation (H5a/H5b moderate the service-to-CSR link). The remaining legacy repairs narrowed two unstated inferences in Lauriano's Limitations, corrected Aversa's "field-configuring events" to the paper's own "literature on events", and fixed a temporal/temporary wording slip in Xu's Future Research. One repair touched a new v3 field: Kundro's Data & Measures attached recruited-sample demographics to post-exclusion analysed Ns across three experiments. A second round surfaced a generalizability caveat the paper raises and then rejects (Dwertmann: "we would anticipate comparable or potentially more positive results in other national contexts"), and a third round found the same premise had propagated to the sibling Future Research field — a new pattern worth noting, since repairing one field left the other wrong. Six residual PARTIALs are accepted and documented rather than edited. Three are verification artifacts on faithful notes: Lauriano's and Xu's Data & Measures draw on Appendix A1 and Appendix B respectively, which the audit tooling trims to fit its context budget, and Xu's Future Research sits in the same trimmed region. Chan's Practical Implication draws every component from the paper's own Boundary Conditions in a paper with no practical-implications section, and Dwertmann's remaining two are re-scorings of nuances that two earlier independent audit rounds had explicitly noted and passed — both accepted under the repair convergence bound. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batches 08 and 09 did.
v0.42.0 v3 backfill batch 09 (2026-07-28, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 66, issue 3 and issue 2, 24 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 887 v2, 219 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 214 / 216 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 2 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 24 notes overall pass), after fourteen evidence-based repairs across eight notes. Twelve of the fourteen fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard. Three of those form the batch's recurring pattern — a Mechanism Process that misstates how the paper's own model is wired: Ingram's mediator Dyadic Individuation was attributed to latent semantic analysis when the paper builds it as "a sum of Uniqueness for the two members of the dyad" (LSA generates the other mediator); Lee (66-2) had self-serving attribution dampening an above-aspiration effect the paper says it steepens ("will decrease their search for alternatives to alliances, making future acquisitions less likely"); and Zhang listed mentor engagement as a mediator in Study 2B, where the paper labels it "Mentor engagement (dependent variable)". The remaining legacy repairs removed a fabricated limitation the paper frames as favourable design context (Ingram — the words "limitation" and "generaliz" appear nowhere in the text), reversed a generalizability claim the paper argues against (Lee 66-3: the thesis "could still hold in individualistic countries as well"), corrected a causal-language upgrade (Bianchi: the paper claims only "a more direct test of causality"), re-scoped a machine-learning direction that in the paper refers to Instagram's placement algorithm (Roccapriore), and dropped two unstated prescriptions (Toivonen, Lee 66-2). Two repairs touched new v3 fields: a wrongly cited case in Toivonen's Key Findings (the paper states "Clayton did not substantially change his plans") and a cross-study coverage error in Cunningham's Data & Measures. A second round surfaced two further Data & Measures slips (Bianchi's observation range, Zhang's mentee sample), both repaired; a third round returned all eighteen fields SUPPORTED. Two residual PARTIALs are accepted and documented rather than edited: Hersel's Data & Measures is faithful — its word-list details are stated verbatim in the paper's Appendix A, which the audit tooling trims to fit its context budget — and Toivonen's Practical Implication rests on anchored components in a paper that has no practical-implications section, so it is accepted under the repair convergence bound. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). This batch ran on claude-opus-5, as batch 08 did.
v0.41.0 v3 backfill batch 08 (2026-07-28, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 66, issue 5 and issue 4, 23 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 911 v2, 195 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 207 / 207 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 23 notes overall pass), after ten evidence-based repairs across eight notes. Nine of the ten fall on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard, and three of those form the batch's one recurring pattern — a Mechanism Process that presents an empirical outcome as the paper's ex ante theory: Banerjee's demand-side penalty on distinctiveness from current competitors was framed as theorized when Hypothesis 4 predicted the opposite and the paper reports "the opposite directionality than predicted" (p < .001); Lander called a countermobilization effect "unexpected" that Hypothesis 4 explicitly predicted; and Kim narrowed a moderation the paper hypothesized across all three dress dimensions (H4a–H4c) down to the single dimension that survived testing. The remaining legacy repairs removed an unstated "cultural settings" extension (Carnabuci), four caveats the paper never framed as limitations (Dang), a generalizability claim and an effect-size characterization the paper argues against (Liao), a dropped "descriptive rather than prescriptive" caution plus an added "organizations" audience (Hussain, the one repair needing a second round), and generic future directions substituted for the paper's own (Kundro). Only one repair touched a new v3 field: an unstated "U.S." on Study 1's site in Kundro's Data & Measures. Fresh independent re-audits of every changed note returned all nine fields SUPPORTED. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed). Provenance note: this batch ran on claude-opus-5, so its 23 notes carry augmented_model: "claude-opus-5" and their audits auditor_model: claude-opus-5, where backfill batches 01–07 recorded claude-opus-4-8.
v0.40.0 v3 backfill batch 07 (2026-07-14, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 67, issue 1 and volume 66, issue 6, 24 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 934 v2, 172 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 216 / 216 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 24 notes overall pass), after three evidence-based repairs cleared in a single round — all three on legacy prose fields written before the v3 standard, each an "applied extension" scope-drift narrowed back to the paper's own scope: a practical implication that had added an unstated "platform designers / category curators" audience (Soublière), a future- research field carrying two unframed added directions (Park, coevolutionary lock-in), and a limitation asserting a single-firm generalizability caveat that the paper's own Generalizability section argues against (Jia). A fresh independent re-audit of the three repaired notes returned every field SUPPORTED. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed).
v0.39.0 v3 backfill batch 06 (2026-07-12, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 67, issue 3 and issue 2, 21 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 958 v2, 148 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 189 / 189 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 21 notes overall pass), after two evidence-based repairs cleared in a single round — one new-field precision fix to Data & Measures (Preston relabeled Study 1's 135/51 White/Black split from "predecessors" to the appointed coaches, matching the paper's own count) and one legacy-limitations fix (Compagni's invented "Steering Committee meetings", a specific absent from the paper text). A fresh re-audit of the two repaired notes returned every field SUPPORTED. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed).
v0.38.0 v3 backfill batch 05 (2026-07-12, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 67, issue 5 and issue 4, 18 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 979 v2, 127 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 162 / 162 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 18 notes overall pass), after four evidence-based repairs cleared in a single round — two new-field precision fixes to Data & Measures (the Hallila fixed-effect-set list and the Marti 260-statement attribution) and two legacy future-research scope trims (Bliese's invented method-pairing examples and Madsen's measurement call, which the paper frames as a limitation, not a stated direction). A fresh re-audit of the four repaired notes returned every field SUPPORTED. library.bib regenerated byte-identical (the all-augmentation signature — only SQLite and CSV changed).
v0.37.0 v3 backfill batch 04 (2026-07-12, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 68, issue 1 and volume 67, issue 6, 18 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations. The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 997 v2, 109 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 160 / 162 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED (all 18 notes overall pass). These two issues' older v2 notes carried an unusual amount of scope drift in their practical-implication and future-research fields, so eighteen evidence-based repairs across two rounds narrowed added audiences, prescriptions, and examples back to the papers' own scope (and fixed three factual slips). Two residual PARTIALs were accepted and documented rather than edited: the Hagtvedt future-research note lightly extends a stated limitation, and the Trzebiatowski data-measures note carries a source-ambiguous turnover lag that is internally consistent with the paper's methods — editing either to appease the auditor would violate the faithful-note rule.
v0.36.0 v3 backfill batch 03 (2026-07-11, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 68, issue 3 and issue 2, 16 notes total to the v3 schema — all v2 augmentations (the AMJ v1 re-extraction tier was cleared in batch 02, so batches 03+ are pure augmentation). The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 1,015 v2, 91 v3. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 144 / 144 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, after two evidence-based scope repairs (the Fitzsimons and Knight practical implications were narrowed to the paper's own stated audience and claims).
v0.35.0 v3 backfill batch 02 (2026-07-11, 1,167 notes): Upgrades AMJ volume 68, issue 5 and issue 4, 19 notes total to the v3 schema (11 legacy v1 notes fully re-extracted, 8 v2 notes augmented in place). The record total is unchanged at 1,167; the version-tier census shifts to 61 v1, 1,031 v2, 75 v3, and one re-extracted note (Lazar) was reclassified empirical-mixed → empirical-quantitative. Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 170 / 171 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, after five evidence-based repairs (per-study support-pattern and scope corrections on Chung, Dutta, and Preston). One residual PARTIAL remains, on the Li note's Limitations: its "30% and 7%" mediation figures are verbatim-faithful to the paper, but two-column typesetting splices that sentence into the reference list, so the independent auditor could not re-verify the 7% — the faithful sentence was left unchanged rather than edited to appease the extraction artifact.
v0.34.0 v3 backfill batch 01 (2026-07-11, 1,167 notes): Upgrades the two most recent AMJ issues to the v3 schema — AMJ volume 69, issue 1 and volume 68, issue 6, 17 notes total (16 legacy v1 notes fully re-extracted, 1 v2 note augmented in place). This adds Hypotheses / Propositions, Data & Measures, and Key Findings to every note in both issues; the record total is unchanged at 1,167 (a backfill adds no papers). Each touched note passed a fresh full independent 9-field rubric-v2 audit: 153 / 153 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, 0 CONTRADICTED, after three evidence-based repairs (Peng and Lee key-findings over-generalizations, and the Mahringer note's practical implication narrowed to the paper's own scope). The version-tier census shifts accordingly: 72 v1, 1,039 v2, 56 v3.
v0.33.0 sweep (2026-07-11, 1,167 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 57, issue 3 — 13 peer-reviewed papers produced under extraction v3 and independently audited under rubric v2. One audit-identified field was repaired from PDF evidence before release: Crossland's Theoretical Contribution had listed CEO tenure among the constructs the paper's discriminant-validity analysis distinguished career variety from (the tests covered openness to experience, risk propensity, age, and education, not tenure). A fresh re-audit cleared the repair; the final issue scan has 117 / 117 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. All 13 notes validate, the manifest lints cleanly, and scoped CrossRef verification matches all seven checked bibliographic fields for every paper. SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX were rebuilt sequentially and each contains 1,167 records.
v0.32.0 sweep (2026-07-10, 1,154 notes): Adds Academy of Management Journal volume 57, issue 2 — 13 peer-reviewed papers produced under extraction v3 and independently audited under rubric v2. Three audit-identified fields were repaired from PDF evidence before release: Beckman's board-measure timing, Rogan's agency-level robustness qualification, and Wang's patent-count-mediated indirect pathway. Fresh re-audits cleared each repair; the final issue scan has 117 / 117 prose-field verdicts SUPPORTED, 0 PARTIAL, 0 UNSUPPORTED, and 0 CONTRADICTED. All 13 notes validate, the manifest lints cleanly, and scoped CrossRef verification matches all seven checked bibliographic fields for every paper. SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX were rebuilt sequentially and each contains 1,154 records.

Run the audit on a single note. Layer 1 (the mechanical anchor check) runs standalone; the full two-layer audit reads an independent auditor's verdict:

# Layer 1 only (mechanical evidence-anchor check):
python tools/audit_note.py notes/<paper_id>.md --skip-layer-2

# Full two-layer audit (Layer 2 verdict supplied by an independent auditor):
python tools/audit_note.py notes/<paper_id>.md \
  --layer-2-json incoming/_audits/<paper_id>.layer2.json

Or, from inside a Claude Code session: /audit-note <paper_id>.

What's in this snapshot

The current v0.78.0 snapshot contains 1,201 curated notes:

NBS 2026-02 — 77 notes distilled from the Network for Business Sustainability (NBS) February 2026 monthly research digest. (62 notes shipped in v0.2.0; 15 previously-missing papers were recovered and added in v0.3.0.)
NBS 2025-12 — 82 notes from the NBS December 2025 monthly digest, spanning the Ecological Economics biodiversity-and-finance special issue, AMJ, Business & Society, Review of Finance, Strategic Management Journal, and other journals (added in v0.20.0).
NBS 2026-01 — 113 notes from the NBS January 2026 monthly digest, led by the Journal of Business Ethics (40) with Research Policy (14), the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Organization Science, Human Relations, The Journal of Finance, MIS Quarterly, and other journals (added in v0.21.0).
AMJ pilot — 929 notes across 74 issues of the Academy of Management Journal (vol. 57 no. 1 through vol. 57 no. 3 and vol. 57 no. 6, vol. 58 no. 1 through vol. 58 no. 6, vol. 59 no. 1 through vol. 59 no. 6, vol. 60 no. 1 through vol. 60 no. 6, vol. 61 no. 1 through vol. 61 no. 6, vol. 62 no. 1 through vol. 62 no. 6, vol. 63 no. 1 through vol. 63 no. 6, vol. 64 no. 1 through vol. 64 no. 6, vol. 65 no. 1 through vol. 65 no. 6, vol. 66 no. 1 through vol. 66 no. 6, vol. 67 no. 1 through vol. 67 no. 6, vol. 68 no. 1 through vol. 68 no. 6, and vol. 69 no. 1 through vol. 69 no. 4). v0.78.0 added vol. 57 no. 6 (13 new notes, including the editorial); v0.77.0 added vol. 69 no. 4 (8 new notes; 1 existing NBS note retained); v0.76.0 added vol. 69 no. 3 (7 new notes; 2 existing NBS notes retained); v0.75.0 added vol. 69 no. 2 (6 new notes; 3 existing NBS notes retained); v0.33.0 added vol. 57 no. 3 (13 notes); v0.32.0 added vol. 57 no. 2 (13 notes); v0.31.0 added vol. 57 no. 1 (13 notes, the first extraction-v3 issue); v0.29.0 added vol. 58 no. 1-6 (78 notes); v0.28.0 added vol. 59 no. 1-6 (95 notes); v0.27.0 added vol. 60 no. 1-6 (95 notes); v0.26.0 added vol. 61 no. 1-6 (93 notes); v0.25.0 added vol. 62 no. 1-6 (76 notes); v0.24.0 added vol. 63 no. 1-6 (74 notes); v0.23.0 added vol. 64 no. 1-6 (75 notes); v0.22.0 added vol. 65 no. 1-6 (77 notes); v0.19.0 added vol. 66 no. 1 (13 notes); v0.18.0 added vol. 66 no. 2 (13 notes); v0.17.0 added vol. 66 no. 3 (11 notes); v0.16.0 added vol. 66 no. 4 (11 notes); v0.15.0 added vol. 66 no. 5 (12 notes); v0.14.0 added vol. 66 no. 6 (13 notes); v0.13.0 added vol. 67 no. 1 (11 notes); v0.12.0 added vol. 67 no. 2 (11 notes); v0.11.0 added vol. 67 no. 3 (10 notes); v0.10.0 added vol. 67 no. 4 (9 notes); v0.9.0 added vol. 67 no. 5 (9 notes); v0.8.0 added vol. 67 no. 6 (8 notes); v0.7.0 added vol. 68 no. 1 (10 notes); v0.6.0 added vol. 68 no. 2 (8 notes); v0.5.0 added vol. 68 no. 3 (8 notes); v0.4.0 added vol. 68 no. 4 (8 notes); the original pilot covered the remaining three issues (28 notes).

Paper type	Count
empirical-quantitative	690
empirical-qualitative	252
empirical-mixed	113
editorial	76
conceptual	54
review	9
book-review	6
other	1
Total	1,201

All stored official reports passed at the v0.70.0 release. The completed V1 review, selected v0.74.0 AMJ closeout and excluded retrospective queue are disclosed above. The v0.78.0 corpus contains 61 legacy v1 notes, 211 v2 notes, and 929 v3 notes; v2/v3 notes carry an evidence: anchor block checked by Layer 1, and v3 notes add Hypotheses / Propositions, Data & Measures, and Key Findings. See Faithfulness audit above.

Repository layout

management-research-notes/
├── README.md                          ← you are here
├── AGENTS.md                          ← tool-agnostic entry point for AI agents
├── LICENSE                            ← MIT
├── CITATION.cff                       ← cite-this-repo metadata
├── CLAUDE.md                          ← rules for any Claude Code session in this folder
├── docs/
│   ├── extraction-prompt.md           ← the canonical extraction prompt (v3)
│   └── audit-rubric.md                ← rubric the Layer 2 auditor uses
├── notes/                             ← 1,167 curated paper notes (the source of truth)
│   └── nbs-2026-02-spoor-2026.md
├── index/                             ← derived views, all rebuildable
│   ├── synapse.db                     ← SQLite + FTS5 (~19 MB)
│   ├── papers.csv                     ← flat tabular export
│   ├── library.bib                    ← BibTeX, one @article per note
│   └── topics.json                    ← 14-domain controlled vocabulary
├── tools/                             ← the Python pipeline
│   ├── pdf_to_text.py                 ← PDF → plain text (pdftotext + pdfplumber)
│   ├── populate_manifest.py           ← Tier 3 gate: backfill vol/issue/pages + fix year (CrossRef)
│   ├── lint_manifests.py              ← structural manifest lint (catches name-capture bugs)
│   ├── prepare_paper.py               ← bundle a paper for extraction
│   ├── ingest_batch.py                ← walk a folder of PDFs
│   ├── validate_note.py               ← verbatim-abstract + bib + taxonomy + anchors
│   ├── audit_note.py                  ← two-layer faithfulness audit (Layer 1 + Layer 2)
│   ├── verify_metadata.py             ← Tier 2 gate: cross-check bib fields vs CrossRef (verify_years.py = year-only alias)
│   ├── build_index.py                 ← rebuild SQLite from notes/
│   ├── export_csv.py                  ← rebuild papers.csv
│   └── export_bibtex.py               ← rebuild library.bib
├── library/
│   ├── NBS/2026-02/
│   │   ├── manifest.tsv               ← trusted bibliographic source for the batch
│   │   └── missing.tsv                ← papers NBS listed but PDFs unavailable
│   └── AMJ/vol-58-no-1 ... vol-69-no-1/
│       └── manifest.tsv               ← per-issue manifests for the AMJ pilot
│       (pdfs/ and text/ are intentionally NOT published — see Copyright below)
└── .synapse/
    ├── config.yaml                    ← validator policy + custom-field schema
    └── schema.sql                     ← SQLite schema

Quick start

git clone https://github.com/binqi20/management-research-notes.git
cd management-research-notes

# Optional: rebuild the SQLite index from the notes
python tools/build_index.py

# Query the library — answers come back in milliseconds
sqlite3 index/synapse.db "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM papers;"
sqlite3 index/synapse.db \
  "SELECT paper_type, COUNT(*) FROM papers GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC;"
sqlite3 index/synapse.db \
  "SELECT p.id, p.title FROM papers p JOIN topics t ON t.paper_id = p.id
   WHERE t.topic = 'circular-economy' ORDER BY p.year DESC;"

# Full-text search across abstracts and analytic fields
sqlite3 index/synapse.db \
  "SELECT id FROM papers_fts WHERE papers_fts MATCH 'stakeholder AND legitimacy';"

# Re-export BibTeX or CSV
python tools/export_bibtex.py
python tools/export_csv.py

Optional dependencies (for ingesting new PDFs locally)

brew install poppler            # gives you pdftotext
pip install pyyaml pdfplumber   # pyyaml: validator; pdfplumber: extraction fallback

The validator (tools/validate_note.py) reads the corresponding extracted text file under library/<source>/<issue>/text/ to perform its verbatim-abstract substring check. That folder is intentionally absent from the public repo because the text is derived from copyrighted PDFs — see below. For a public clone, the SQLite, CSV, and BibTeX queries above all work without it.

For AI agents

If you are an AI agent (or writing one) and want to consume or contribute to this knowledge base, start with AGENTS.md — it is the tool-agnostic entry point covering:

the data formats you can consume without running any tooling (Markdown notes, SQLite + FTS5, CSV, BibTeX),
the 7 hard rules any agent must follow when creating or editing notes,
the faithfulness guarantees this library carries (every abstract verbatim-anchored, every prose field audited, zero contradictions),
and how to cite the knowledge base if your agent surfaces a note.

For Claude Code-specific operational conventions (slash commands, subagent dispatch, tool names), see CLAUDE.md as well.

Copyright and licensing

The original journal articles that the notes summarize are NOT included. They remain the copyright of their respective publishers and authors. To reproduce a note end-to-end, obtain the source PDF through legitimate channels (your institution, the publisher, or the author's preprint), drop it into incoming/, and run the pipeline locally.

Each note contains a short verbatim abstract (treated as fair-use quotation/commentary) and an original analytic distillation written by the author of this repository. Notes cite the original work via DOI in every file's frontmatter and APA citation block.

How to cite

This repository ships with a CITATION.cff, which GitHub uses to render a "Cite this repository" button in the right sidebar. It will give you both APA and BibTeX automatically. Or, manually:

@software{tang_mgmt_research_notes_2026,
  author       = {Tang, Binqi},
  title        = {Management Research Notes: A File-Based Academic Knowledge
                  Base for Management and Business Sustainability Research},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {0.78.0},
  doi          = {10.5281/zenodo.19564336},
  url          = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19564336},
  license      = {MIT}
}

If you use a specific note, please also cite the original paper using the DOI in that note's APA citation block — the analytic distillation is a commentary, not a substitute.

Roadmap

This project is intended to be a long-running research-infrastructure project, not a one-shot data drop. The near-term roadmap:

More monthly batches — extend NBS coverage with each new digest and extend AMJ coverage into earlier volumes, keeping paper IDs stable across updates.
Additional journal sources — add Web of Science exports and journal RSS feeds as parallel library/{source}/{issue}/ trees, reusing the same pipeline.
Audit layer hardening — cross-model auditing (run Layer 2 with a second model vendor), automated re-audit on prompt changes, and a lightweight public audit-summary CSV so consumers can see which prose fields carry PARTIAL verdicts without needing to regenerate.
Vector search — only after the library passes ~5,000 notes; the SQLite FTS5 index is plenty for now.
Community contributions — issues and pull requests welcome from collaborators who want to share extraction prompts, topic taxonomies, or curated subsets.

Acknowledgements

The Network for Business Sustainability (NBS) for curating the monthly research digest that seeds this library.
Anthropic Claude Code for the extraction-and-validation workflow that drives the ingestion pipeline.
OpenAI Codex for the issue-level extraction and independent-audit orchestration used in the AMJ volume 64 backfill.
The authors of every paper in notes/ — without their original scholarship, there is nothing to distill.

Maintained by Binqi Tang. MIT licensed. Issues and PRs welcome.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

About

Repository files navigation

Management Research Notes

Author

What it is

Why it exists

Faithfulness audit

What's in this snapshot

Repository layout

Quick start

Optional dependencies (for ingesting new PDFs locally)

For AI agents

Copyright and licensing

How to cite

Roadmap

Acknowledgements

About

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages

Name		Name	Last commit message	Last commit date
.claude/commands		.claude/commands
.synapse		.synapse
docs		docs
index		index
library		library
notes		notes
tests		tests
tools		tools
.gitignore		.gitignore
AGENTS.md		AGENTS.md
CITATION.cff		CITATION.cff
CLAUDE.md		CLAUDE.md
LICENSE		LICENSE
README.md		README.md

Calibration arm	Non-regression defects caught	Improvement defects caught	Amended control gate
A: holistic rubric v3	4/4	3/4	PASS
B: independent holistic + claims	4/4	3/4	PASS

Latest commit

History

Folders and files

Repository files navigation

Management Research Notes

Author

What it is

Why it exists

Faithfulness audit

What's in this snapshot

Repository layout

Quick start

Optional dependencies (for ingesting new PDFs locally)

For AI agents

Copyright and licensing

How to cite

Roadmap

Acknowledgements

About

Topics

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages