Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A research program that publishes on machine-generated error is only worth reading if it publishes its own. This paper is that record. It reports a dated June defect census over a eighteen-paper audit cohort, a September post-repair check of the item-level findings that could still be re-evaluated, the audit machinery that produced them, and the false closure that let defects survive repeated declarations of completion. The census is not a confession and it is not an apology. It is a result, and it is the result this program is best positioned to produce, because it is the only body of work whose full internal history, including every superseded draft and every dispatch that produced one, is available for inspection by its own author.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
E. M. Honeycutt III (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: