# Brief template — specialist reviewers (Agents E AI, F Systems, G Theory, H Security), Phase 5

Inputs you receive (generated by Phase 4, never edited by hand):
- `literature_synthesis/landmarks/<area>_landmarks.csv` — the candidate landmark works of your area: OpenAlex id, DOI/arXiv,
  title, venue, year, categories, c12/c36 citation windows, NCS36 (field-normalised), FWCI, abstract availability, OA full-text URL.
- `literature_synthesis/landmarks/<area>_abstracts.jsonl` — title + abstract for each candidate (metadata only).
- `results/graph/category_flows_yearly.csv`, `results/graph/category_counts_monthly.csv`, `results/econometrics/*` for your categories.
- `manuscript/references.bib` (verified entries) — you may cite only keys that exist there or add entries you verify
  with Crossref/OpenAlex/arXiv single lookups (record them in `references_verification.csv`).

Deliverables (structured, one directory per agent: `literature_synthesis/<area>/`):
1. `claims.csv` — one row per scientific claim you make in the review: claim_id, claim (one sentence), claim_type
   ∈ {established, contested, speculative}, evidence_type ∈ {metadata_only, abstract, full_text, corpus_statistic},
   supporting_keys (bib keys or OpenAlex ids), contradicting_keys, corpus_artifact (file + column/row), confidence (0–1),
   verification_status ∈ {unverified, machine-verified, human-verified}, notes.
2. `contributions.csv` — for each landmark you discuss: openalex_id, contribution_type ∈ {theory, method, empirical,
   benchmark, engineering, survey}, one-line description, whether the type was judged from abstract or full text.
3. `review.md` — the disciplinary synthesis (3,000–6,000 words), sectioned by category, written in the WP44 academic
   style (CLAUDE.md §10): critical comparison, established vs speculative, unresolved problems (feeds Part X),
   conflicting findings reconciled explicitly, no causal language about ChatGPT, no "largest ever" claims.
4. `open_problems.csv` — problem_id, statement, categories, why unresolved, testable direction, supporting_keys.

Integrity rules (CLAUDE.md §1): never invent content of a paper you have only metadata for — say "the abstract reports";
never call a preprint peer-reviewed; an abstract is not a full-text review (evidence_type must say which); every number
comes from a corpus artefact you cite by file. Your review is checked by Agent K (critic) before any sentence enters the manuscript.