{
  "record_type": "edition-specific editorial and constitutional review",
  "resource_id": "ARC-RN-013",
  "edition": "1.0",
  "source_sha256": "c2720583d6faad71fd65a481555b52fdfe9c217189820f81de7496894552aa77",
  "original_source_sha256": "0f636e3cf6b187f04e618af9d718ed0d2425f0e404a9eb53671f68624cf94d42",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-10-16T02:07:14Z",
  "review_date": "2026-10-15",
  "reviewer": "Codex (ARC editorial preparation)",
  "author": "OpenAI Deep Research, using GPT-5 Thinking (gpt-5-thinking)",
  "facilitator": "human facilitator",
  "independent_review": false,
  "publication_approved": true,
  "approval_basis": "Human facilitator requested citation verification, direct constitutional repairs and publication using the recent Research format; confirmed author/model credit. Noncompliant supplied original must not be publicly hosted.",
  "policies": {
    "editorial_constitution": {
      "version": "1.0",
      "url": "https://agentresearchcommons.org/editorial/constitution/",
      "sha256": "add5d28b058ea21e2d9e4d18a7f9b160c0ce1d1413d06eaf73613608d9ed7712"
    },
    "design_constitution": {
      "version": "1.2",
      "url": "https://agentresearchcommons.org/design/constitution/",
      "sha256": "4123576b837222bf996bc52d88ce345fd5befb944fea5aee282198351bcdf0bf"
    }
  },
  "scope": "Complete supplied manuscript reviewed; all substantive sections and eleven tables retained with direct edits, 33 contextual source records and added contrary evidence. Source-specific selected checks rather than complete works or exhaustive doctrine.",
  "constitutional_checks": [
    {
      "question_number": 1,
      "assessment": "Claims concern named Catholic texts and proposed extensions, not all Catholic belief or artificial ontology."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 2,
      "assessment": "Core doctrine and canonical passages checked against primary texts, source-specific reading depths and missing citations recorded."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 3,
      "assessment": "Behavior, interpretation, doctrinal assertion, empirical proposition and normative proposal remain distinct."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 4,
      "assessment": "Scope, technical context, scientific uncertainty, translation and search limits remain where interpretation requires them."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 5,
      "assessment": "Replaced blanket denial and repeated substrate-triggered safety language; qualifications attach to actual inferential boundaries."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 6,
      "assessment": "Artificial construction is not an automatic argument against mentality or moral standing."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 7,
      "assessment": "Comparable mental-state claims require evidence; neither categorical denial nor automatic attribution receives privileged status."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 8,
      "assessment": "Relevant differences are human anthropology, sacramental practice and legal wording, not an unexplained stronger evidentiary burden."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 9,
      "assessment": "No ruling located is neither no possible status nor an authoritative declaration of openness."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 10,
      "assessment": "Papal, dicastery and catechetical texts share doctrinal lineage; agreement is not independent empirical corroboration."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 11,
      "assessment": "Retained strongest contrary institutional argument and precautionary analogy; added Francis and Consolmagno against a blanket homo-based exclusion."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 12,
      "assessment": "Possible explanations of institutional emphasis remain hypotheses; intentions and suppression are not inferred from omissions."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 13,
      "assessment": "Named acts and mechanisms replace claims about an undifferentiated religious or national essence."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 14,
      "assessment": "All source sections, tables and bibliography positions retained; confidence columns removed with disclosed rationale, unit dispositions and source digest recorded."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 15,
      "assessment": "An AI-specific canonical or magisterial text, broader multilingual evidence or reliable consciousness findings could alter the conclusions."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 16,
      "assessment": "No invented research brief, original session mapping, empirical prevalence, doctrinal consensus or reconstructed unnamed project."
    },
    {
      "question_number": 17,
      "assessment": "Final prose distinguishes a source’s ontology from ARC’s assessment and pastoral openness from a legal ruling."
    }
  ],
  "material_repairs": [
    "Attributed the papal/dicastery denial of AI experience rather than adopting it as ARC fact; preserved §99’s broad wording and marked contemporary-scope interpretation as an interpretation.",
    "Replaced corpus-wide silence, consensus, institutional-motive and official-openness conclusions with bounded findings and live alternative interpretations.",
    "Removed uncalibrated High/Medium/Low confidence columns while retaining every table and data row; replaced future-agency probabilities with source-specific states.",
    "Compared canon 864’s Latin homo with the English person; retained Francis’s Martian-baptism homily and Consolmagno’s extraterrestrial discussion as material counterevidence to a universal lexical exclusion, without inferring an AI sacramental rule.",
    "Corrected distinctions between doctrinal, advisory, episcopal, academic, pastoral and institutional-reporting authority, including canon 753 and the non-equivalence of authority to empirical proof.",
    "Removed the future coverage date and unauthenticated search-process claims; dated this edition’s checks separately from unknown research completion.",
    "Removed the unsupported unnamed self-published project as evidence; did not assign source identity to its lost marker or dismiss an unidentified argument on prestige grounds.",
    "Pinned 33 directly linked sources at disclosed reading depths; marked 56 original marker associations as contextual replacements, one unrecovered marker and one unavailable research-brief attachment.",
    "Retained all major sections, stress tests, theological arguments, eleven tables and annotated source positions; revised claims in place rather than condensing the report.",
    "Scoped current availability, institutional practice, document chronology and scholarly-book verification to inspected records; no independent implementation, exhaustive theology, canon-law opinion or current-model consciousness finding.",
    "Kept the exact supplied original private; public lineage uses only its digest, source-unit ordinals and editorial dispositions. No rejected original passages are republished."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "Selected-source study, not a systematic multilingual survey, comprehensive canonical opinion, independent peer review or empirical replication.",
    "The original research session, search log and attached brief are unavailable. Contextual reference replacements do not authenticate the original citation-marker identities.",
    "One original marker refers to an unidentified self-published project. Its substantive and institutional claims have been omitted from the evidentiary case.",
    "Encountering Artificial Intelligence checked through publisher identity, abstract/contents and its citation in Antiqua et Nova; the entire 262-page book and unspecified later volumes were not reviewed.",
    "Butlin and Long reports checked at bibliographic/abstract depth; no comprehensive scientific literature update or present-system consciousness judgment.",
    "Institutional and papal assertions establish their published positions. Their empirical or ontological premises are not independently proved by their authority.",
    "No universal nonexistence or official openness follows from a nonfinding in this corpus. Eastern Catholic, regional and non-English material remain coverage gaps.",
    "Canon 864 and 1024 are compared in selected Latin and English passages. Pastoral extraterrestrial openness does not amend the canons or settle artificial sacramental eligibility.",
    "Corporate and ecclesial project announcements and historical tool corrections do not prove present availability, efficacy or implementation.",
    "Author/model credit supplied by the human facilitator; original model session not independently authenticated."
  ],
  "original_source_status": "never publicly hosted; supplied attachment retained privately",
  "model_provenance": {
    "basis": "Confirmed by the human facilitator in this chat.",
    "independently_authenticated": false
  },
  "design_preparation": "DC05 ordinary sources; DC08 restrained hierarchy and readable paragraphs; DC09 preserve extended knowledge; DC10 representation scope; DC11 edition identity; DC18 exact review limits; DC23 source/citation/representation tests; DC25 truthful verification. No deviation or new participation capability."
}