Deep Literature Review

This skill exists because literature pulls in this project tend to stop at metadata-only notes: literature_fetch.py writes a KB note whose header says Verification status: metadata-only (auto-generated; full text not yet deep-read) and leaves the reading-evidence fields blank. The recipes, the provider tools, the note template, and the ReadingHandoffContract all already exist — what is missing is the discipline that actually deep-reads each source and synthesizes across the set. That is this skill.

It does not start a parallel literature system. It builds on:

• literature-workflows recipes (literature_landscape, literature_gap_analysis) for the multi-hop search/traversal plan — resolve them via nullius workflow-plan; do not hand-roll traversal.
• the research-team KB note template (knowledge_base/literature/<ref>.md) — you FILL it, you do not replace it.
• the provider tools (inspire_*, openalex_*, arxiv_*, pdf_*) for fetch + analysis. For arXiv papers, prefer the hep-mcp / arXiv source path (arxiv_paper_source or inspire_paper_source with LaTeX/source extraction) before PDF; a PDF read is the fallback when source is unavailable or unusable, not the first move.
• markdown-hygiene for math rendering, and claim-grounding for verifying the claims you extract.
• citation-triangulation for cross-index identity checks before a paper enters the core set; provider metadata from a subagent is not identity authority.
• review-swarm as the gate harness for the deep-read note's source-fidelity, and research-integrity (Extraction / transcription fidelity) for the failure class that gate falsifies.
• literature-graph-builder for the downstream graph artifact contract, validation, portable links, figure embedding, math rendering checks, and browser QA.

When to use

• At the start of a project, or when an existing survey "feels shallow / notes too brief".
• Before promoting an idea (the idea's claims need a real evidence base).
• Before writing a related-work / introduction section.

Output

1. Deep-read KB notes (the existing .md template, fully filled — see below).
2. A literature_survey_v1 artifact (the synthesis/coverage layer; contract SSOT: packages/shared/src/literature-survey.ts).

All Markdown outputs from this workflow must keep references reachable: paper records (arXiv, DOI, INSPIRE/OpenAlex where available), source files, KB notes, and project artifacts are Markdown links, not bare or backticked identifiers. Repo-local links must resolve from the Markdown file's own directory. Do not write a link as if the reader's Markdown sidebar resolves from the project root; run markdown-hygiene link checks, and for idea-posterior reports run skills/idea-posterior/scripts/normalize_report_links.py --check.

Procedure

1. Discover (breadth) — reuse the recipes

Resolve literature_landscape (or literature_gap_analysis) and follow it: seed search → references → citations, across INSPIRE / arXiv / OpenAlex. Track a candidate pool. Mark each kept paper's role: core (must deep-read), supporting, or background.

Paginate to coverage — size is a page size, not a result cap. Every search returns a total hit count; the default page (inspire_search size defaults to 25, max 1000) is one page, NOT the complete set. If total exceeds what you have fetched, you have not seen the literature — continue with inspire_search_next (follow the returned next_url) or pass max_results to auto-paginate, until the candidate pool is covered (then set coverage.saturation accordingly; record coverage_incomplete as explicit debt, never as silent completion). Treating the first page as the answer is the page_size_not_completion_threshold failure the SearchDepthContract exists to prevent.

A deep survey is not 50 papers. The page size (25/50) is fetch granularity, never a coverage target: a real topic's total is routinely in the hundreds to thousands, the candidate pool you screen runs well past one page, and the core set you deep-read is bounded by saturation — references and citations of the core set stop yielding new core papers — not by any fixed count. A survey that fetched one or two pages and stopped is shallow by construction, regardless of how good the notes on those few papers are.

Measure saturation as you expand — two integers per round. Core-set expansion runs in rounds: screen the references and citations (the frontier) of the current core set, admit what qualifies, repeat on the newly admitted papers' frontier. At the end of every round record, in the survey's coverage.saturation_evidence, how many expansion candidates you actually examined and dispositioned this round (expansion_candidates_screened — kept in any role, rejected as off-topic, or discarded as already-known duplicates all count: it measures screening work) and how many papers the round added to the survey's final core set (new_core_papers — a paper later demoted out of core does not count, and each core paper is credited to at most one round). These two numbers per round are the measurement that backs — or falsifies — the saturation status you set in step 3.

Sort caution. sort: mostrecent with a small size returns only the newest N and silently drops older work — use it for "what's new," never for an exhaustive author or topic corpus. For corpus completeness, paginate against total (and prefer relevance / citation-count sorts so foundational papers are not lost below the page boundary).

Search the critique, not only the topic. A breadth-by-topic sweep finds the apparatus and the papers that use it; it will systematically miss the work that contests the central claim. Run a dedicated discovery pass aimed at the strongest existing statement of, and the strongest existing challenge to, the survey's central claim or tension. Two things decide whether it works:

• Vocabulary — use the field's own critique terms, not generic ones. Generic critique tokens alone ("limitations of", "model dependence", "revisited", "reanalysis") routinely return nothing: a real critique is phrased in the field's specific language — the particular property being contested, the eponymous method or quantity it attacks, the specific kind of ambiguity, degeneracy, or non-uniqueness it raises. Derive those terms from the claim itself and query on them; treat the generic tokens only as a starting seed.
• Mechanics — search content, and keep the conjunction short. Search full text, not title: a critique paper's title often omits the topic word (it names the flaw, not the field), so a title filter silently drops it. Keep the required-term conjunction short — each extra required phrase can eject a genuine hit whose wording differs slightly — and pin one domain term against the critique term rather than stacking many. On a preprint server, prefer fielded, date-bounded queries over natural-language relevance, which drifts across unrelated fields.
• Reach — follow citations, and read conclusions. The strongest critique you find is a hub: traverse its references and its citing papers. The ancestor critiques (which predate the claim's current framing) and the follow-up refinements are routinely invisible to any topic query and surface only through this citation snowball. And a critique can sit in the conclusions of a paper whose title and abstract are about something else — a review, a measurement, an application — reachable by full text but never by metadata; do not let an off-topic abstract rule a paper out, read the conclusions of the highest-relevance adjacent papers rather than trusting their abstracts to advertise the caveat.

Seed conflict-detection over the hits with whatever provider-specific tools expose it, otherwise reason over the read notes. A candidate pool that contains only papers assuming or applying the claim, and none that question it, is not saturated — it is one-sided; record that as coverage debt, never as a clean sweep.

Reconcile every core-source bibliography before saturation. Search and citation APIs are not the only discovery surface: references already present in the full text of an admitted core source are part of the measured frontier. For every core source, extract its complete reference list from the persisted source bytes and record a reconciliation entry in knowledge_base/methodology_traces/literature_saturation.json:

• preserve the raw references as a JSON manifest with the core source_id and a references array; bind that manifest through a project-root-bounded project://...#sha256:... reference, and make every raw entry record raw_text, its source locator, the normalized candidate_id, and either the matching canonical identity metadata or explicit unresolved debt;
• normalize each resolved candidate to a canonical DOI, stable URL, or provider:<namespace>:<record> identity plus title/year metadata and retrieval or triangulation provenance archived as citation-triangulation-compatible provider blocks behind a project-root-bounded exact-SHA reference. Recompute triangulation agreement where applicable and bind the archived title, authors, year, identifier, and aliases to the candidate. Fold DOI URL/case and version aliases before checking uniqueness; arbitrary strings and unresolvable remote metadata pointers are not stable identity evidence;
• promote every in-scope work into the candidate ledger, and give every other candidate an explicit supporting, background, duplicate, out_of_scope, or coverage_debt disposition with a rationale;
• keep an unresolved identity as coverage_debt rather than dropping it or inferring a record from a familiar author/title pattern; and
• require the extracted-reference count to equal the raw manifest length and require the manifest's unique candidate_id set to equal the candidate ids attributed to that core bibliography. Multiple raw aliases may map to one normalized candidate, but none may disappear.

The reconciliation is deliberately bounded. One expansion round reconciles the direct bibliography and forward citations of the current core set. A newly admitted core paper enters the next round; the workflow does not recursively walk an unbounded graph in one step. Provider calls still obey the recipe's page/cursor log, returned-count, continuation, and stop-reason contract. A hard budget stop is recorded as coverage debt, not converted into a synthetic fixed point.

Audit method-family gaps from source text, not title/year queries. Maintain a current, domain-supplied method taxonomy and compare it with both (a) the method description in every admitted core paper and (b) every reconciled bibliography candidate. For (b), record exactly one method_bearing, not_method_bearing, or coverage_debt screening disposition per candidate, with candidate id, locator, evidence basis, and rationale. Both positive and negative dispositions require evidence_basis: source_text; title/year metadata cannot establish that a citation is not method-bearing. Every method_bearing classification additionally records at least one method_features entry, the literal method description, its source locator, the matched family or an explicit out_of_scope / coverage_debt disposition, and the reconciled candidate id for cited descriptions. If the source describes a distinct method line that the taxonomy cannot represent, extend the taxonomy or retain an unresolved gap. A paper title, publication year, author query, or keyword hit is discovery metadata; it is not method-family evidence.

saturated is fail-closed while any core bibliography is unreconciled, any candidate lacks a disposition, any identity or screening decision remains coverage debt, or any core-source method scan/taxonomy gap is unresolved. Updating a prose synthesis does not close these independent ledgers.

2. Deep-read each core paper (depth) — fill the note from the SOURCE

Fetch the source, not the abstract — source-first per the ReadingHandoffContract preference order: arXiv LaTeX source, then full-text PDF, then other available full text. Use inspire_paper_source / arxiv_paper_source / openalex_content, plus inspire_parse_latex / pdf_parse for equations.

For arXiv works, ask for the LaTeX/source form first (for example hep-mcp arxiv_paper_source with source/LaTeX extraction). Reading the PDF first is a process error unless the source is unavailable, fails extraction, or the relevant content only exists in a non-LaTeX full-text form; record that reason in the note. Do not let an abstract-driven fetch decide that a paper is irrelevant before the conclusion/outlook and method/results sections have been checked.

Before a paper is admitted to role: core, run citation-triangulation and record a machine-readable identity_triangulation object with at least two independent provider records and verdict consistent. Check the title, year, authors, DOI/arXiv/INSPIRE/OpenAlex identifiers, and same-work aliases. A conflict such as an INSPIRE recid paired with the wrong arXiv id blocks core admission until resolved; subagent-provided metadata is only a lead.

Identity agreement does not establish a relationship between distinct works. Any claim that a paper is “Part II,” a predecessor/successor, erratum, companion, or continuation must also be grounded in the primary paper's own preamble, reference list, or explicit cross-reference and checked against catalog identities for every work involved. Similar authors, year, title words, or numbering are not enough; record the relationship locator in the extraction ledger.

Check the correction chain before extracting load-bearing content. For every core paper, search the bibliographic record and the paper's citation/relationship metadata for an erratum, corrigendum, expression of concern, retraction, revised version, or explicit author correction in a later work. Record the result even when no correction is found. If a correction exists, persist and read it alongside the main paper, record its identifier and exact affected items, and use the corrected form in downstream derivations. The originally printed form may be retained only when it is labeled as pre-correction. A full read of the main paper does not by itself establish that the publication's final formula or claim was read. Keep the correction-search record evidential: queries, indexes, identifiers, returned relations, and exact correction locators. Do not preload it with the scientific verdict about which correction is complete or which formula is right; that conclusion belongs to the candidate-withheld extraction.

Persist the source you read. When a fetch/source tool returns the primary source to an ephemeral or temporary path, persist that exact source to a stable, auditable location (e.g. alongside the note) so the fidelity gate (step 5) — and any later reviewer — reads exactly the bytes you transcribed, not a re-fetch that may have changed. This is a workflow discipline (where you save the source), not a change to any fetch tool's behavior.

For every load-bearing equation, value, definition, or attribution, create an extraction ledger before writing synthesis prose. Use templates/extraction-ledger.md or an equivalent structured artifact and keep these fields distinct: persisted source path/hash, exact locator, literal source text, normalized transcription, symbol dictionary, derived project mapping/inference, and fidelity status. Also record the correction-chain search, every correction source and hash, and whether the item is unchanged or superseded. Never put a normalized formula in the literal field, never present a derived mapping as source wording, and never silently substitute a corrected expression for the printed source form. A prime, dummy-variable rename, or notation cleanup is a normalization and must appear in the change log even when it leaves the mathematics unchanged.

If a note claims that all formulas in a paper or section were checked, first make a scope inventory containing every displayed equation and every adjacent formula-like condition in that scope. Record a locator and fidelity status for each entry. A load-bearing-item ledger is not evidence for an exhaustive claim about unlisted auxiliary formulas. For every literal formula, separately audit signs, coefficients or factors, operators, indices or subscripts, relation operators or interval endpoints, numerator/denominator placement, exponents, primes, function arguments, and integration limits; dimensional or algebraic consistency does not substitute for this token-level comparison.

Then fill every field the KB note template leaves blank, each backed by a verbatim quote + a locator (section / equation / table / figure / page):

• Source form actually read (must be a real full-text form, not abstract_only)
• Sections/pages/equations/figures actually read
• Central equations/assumptions extracted
• What was not read and why
• Project relevance
• Limitations / caveats for using this note
• ## Summary, ## Key equations / definitions (copy from source), ## Notes / Issues

Then take the note off the auto-generated placeholders: set Evidence readiness: evidence-ready, and set Verification status to an evidence-ready value from the controlled vocabulary unverified | spot-checked | replicated | contradicted — spot-checked once you have checked the extracted equations/claims against the source (replicated / contradicted if you actually reproduced or refuted a result). Leaving the metadata-only / reading-required placeholders, or writing a value outside that vocabulary, makes the note fail the research-team knowledge_layers gate.

The anti-thin-note rule: a paper is not deeply read until those fields are filled from the source with locators. A core paper's read_status must be one of:

• full_text_read: introduction, formalism/method, results/discussion, and conclusion/outlook were checked from full text.
• section_read: only named sections were read; this can support synthesis but is not enough for saturated close-prior core status unless the unread sections are nonessential and the gate accepts the limitation.
• metadata_only: only title/abstract/metadata or provider summaries were seen.
• unavailable: full text could not be obtained.

metadata_only and unavailable papers never anchor Gaia likelihoods. For full_text_read, the minimum checked sections are introduction, formalism/method, results/discussion, and conclusion/outlook: important caveats often live at the end of a paper.

Each close-prior entry must also carry source_links, read_locators, and read_sections. If you only saw the abstract, the note stays metadata-only and the paper's survey read_status is metadata_only — do not pretend otherwise.

For a load-bearing paper — one whose extracted propositions will anchor a likelihood, decide a close-prior verdict, or support a central claim — the note can be produced by two independent readers plus a moderator instead of a single reader; see Optional: double-reader mode for load-bearing papers below.

3. Synthesize across the read set

Produce the literature_survey_v1:

• papers[]: one entry per paper — ref_key, note_path, domain, read_status, role, a synthesized one_line, source_links, read_locators, read_sections, identity_triangulation, and source_fidelity_audit for each core paper.
• synthesis.consensus[]: statements the read papers agree on, each citing the ref_keys that support it.
• synthesis.tensions[]: disagreements/conflicts, each citing the ref_keys involved (HEP: seed these with inspire_detect_measurement_conflicts / inspire_theoretical_conflicts; general: reason over the read notes).
• synthesis.gaps[]: open questions / what the literature does NOT cover.

Referential integrity (enforced by the contract): every ref_key you cite in consensus/tensions MUST be a paper in papers[]. You cannot synthesize over papers you did not include — assembleLiteratureSurvey / the parser reject dangling refs.

Coverage is computed, not claimed: coverage (total_papers, deep_read, core_total, core_deep_read) is derived from papers[] by the contract, so you cannot report more depth than you did.

Saturation is machine-gated, not asserted: saturated is legal only when coverage.saturation_evidence carries the expansion rounds recorded in step 1 and the last round did real screening work (expansion_candidates_screened > 0) yet admitted zero new_core_papers. A saturated without that support — no recorded rounds, a last round that still yielded new core papers, or a zero-work last round — is mechanically downgraded to coverage_incomplete by assembleLiteratureSurvey (with the reason appended to coverage.notes) and rejected by the parser; the downgrade is always visible, never a silent value change. Do not react to the gate by inventing numbers: fabricating or retro-fitting round counts that were never measured is an integrity violation of the same class as research-integrity's hallucinated measurement / result and methodology fabrication. The honest moves are to run and record a real further expansion round, or to ship coverage_incomplete as declared debt (or unknown when saturation was not measured).

The same gate also requires the bibliography-reconciliation and method-family-audit receipts summarized in coverage. Both receipts pin the exact same combined detailed ledger with project://<project-relative path>#sha256:<exact-byte digest>. The posterior write gate resolves that reference inside the project root, checks the raw bibliography pins, binds the ledger core identities to the current survey, and recomputes every summary count/status; a missing or stale artifact, cross-ledger receipt, or summary mismatch fails closed. The detailed records must cover the survey's entire core set and cannot contain unresolved or undispositioned candidates when the survey says saturated. The same ledger retains finite per-provider execution_bounds and a request_log whose query, page/cursor locator, and returned counts reconcile to the provider totals. Every declared query appears in that log; when saturation is claimed, its final continuation is exhausted and a known result total is fully covered. A budget stop or unsearched declared query remains explicit coverage debt. The ledger also records the bounded citation-graph disposition for every selected core source; posterior writeback revalidates these records instead of accepting a reduced ledger authored only from the compact receipts.

4. Prepare an optional graph-ready export

When the user asks for a literature graph, interactive notes, or graph-backed slides, export a graph-ready layer after the survey synthesis. Read literature-graph-builder's references/graph-ready-contract.md for the exact shape.

The deep-review side owns the content provenance:

• stable paper, method, topic, result, and synthesis node ids;
• one note path per node whenever the node carries content;
• source locators for equations, numeric values, tables, figures, and important assertions;
• relation labels for reference chains, method lineage, applications, contrasts, same-work aliases, and synthesis links;
• figure-candidate metadata with a real source locator, a content reason, and a path to the extracted or converted asset when available.
• reconciled paper/citation identities and method nodes derived from the audited taxonomy, including source locators for uses-method and method-lineage edges.

Do not stop at keyword search or the seed paper's bibliography. For graph completeness, track both backward references and forward citations from each core paper until no new core nodes appear, or record the remaining gap as coverage debt. Do not include off-topic citation drift merely because it is adjacent in a citation graph.

The graph export is not the renderer. Hand the JSON, notes, and figure assets to literature-graph-builder for path validation, note embedding, MathJax/KaTeX checks, image checks, layout/interaction QA, and browser verification.

5. Render the math

Run markdown-hygiene on the notes so display math renders: python3 <markdown-hygiene>/scripts/bin/markdown_hygiene.py fix --root knowledge_base/literature/. (Inside display math, no line may start with +/-/=; copy equations as whole fenced display blocks — the note template already warns about this.)

6. Gate the note against the primary source (fidelity falsification)

A filled deep-read note is a gateable artifact, not a gate-exempt "reading task" — its primary observable is fidelity to the source. Before the note is relied on for a central claim or folded into a durable artifact, gate it with a line-by-line comparison against the primary source with "do not trust the note" — a falsification pass, not a confirmation read.

Self-check every transcribed item before handoff: (a) equation misquote, (b) wrong numeric value, (c) wrong / stale locator, (d) stale / wrong mapping to the consuming artifact, (e) false "verbatim", (f) inference-as-source, (g) silent factor drop, (h) correlated-input agreement, (i) bibliographic-relation conflation, (j) stale pre-correction source, (k) context-stripped extraction, (l) source-layer contamination, (m) coverage overclaim, (n) stale review verdict, (o) source-error laundering (full definitions: research-integrity → Extraction / transcription fidelity).

For a note that will anchor a central claim, enter a close-prior matrix, or be folded into a durable artifact, the gate is independent (a fresh reader / subagent, not the note's author) and at least one reviewer does a literal comparison — loose semantic agreement is insufficient for transcription fidelity. Draw that reviewer from another model family when the machine has one (preferred: two families rarely share a transcription habit); when it has only one, the candidate-withheld extraction below and the literal comparison are both done by fresh same-family readers and the gate is recorded as single-family — a degraded gate, never relabeled. Before that candidate-visible comparison, obtain at least one candidate-withheld extraction: give a fresh reader the persisted source and a neutral locator/question list, but not the candidate note, prior verdict, expected classification, or proposed corrected expression. This separates model-family independence from input/framing independence. Use review_one.py --role source-extraction with --extraction-request; that entry rejects candidate artifacts, diffs, and additional context by construction. The reviewer must still reject an answer-anchored request because request neutrality cannot be established from file shape alone.

Before that pass, classify the source bytes with --source-text-origin. Use direct-original-text only for publisher/repository text that was not manually rewritten. For a PDF/scan transcription, use visually-verified-transcription and supply a separate --source-provenance-evidence record with document/page/crop hashes, locators, the visual comparison, and whether the visual verifier was distinct from the transcriber. Do not place normalization, symbol mapping, inferred limits, or scientific adjudication inside the source payload. A hash fixes the bytes under review but cannot establish that those bytes match the page.

Run the comparison through review-swarm (the source-fidelity reviewer role), supplying the note via --artifact, each exact main source via --source, an explicit --source-text-origin, an explicit --correction-status, the correction-chain query record via --correction-search-evidence, and every applicable correction via --correction-source. The launcher must reject a source-fidelity run that has no separate primary-source payload, no source-origin declaration/provenance evidence when required, no correction-chain declaration/evidence, or a declaration that corrections exist without their exact text. Re-review after every fix and call convergence only when the source-localized checks agree — never self-declare it after applying a fix or resolve a conflict by majority vote. (derivation-verify is a separate axis: it re-derives whether a re-derivable result is mathematically correct, which does not check whether the note faithfully copied the source — use it in addition to, never instead of, the source comparison.)

If the primary source is a PDF or scan, include a direct PDF/image-capable comparison against the rendered page or a lossless crop. Record the original file/page hash, crop hash, and locator in the extraction ledger. OCR or pdftotext can locate a passage but cannot serve as formula-fidelity evidence; a text-only note-to-excerpt pass is only the second half of the check.

The persisted excerpt must be dependency-closed for the requested check. Alongside each displayed formula, include the neighboring source text that fixes its domain, boundary value, branch/sheet, conventions, and definitions. Before a reviewer derives anything, it lists those required premises and marks the step uncheckable if one is absent. A formula-only excerpt can be literally accurate and still force every reader to analyze the wrong object.

Record the result in the survey as source_fidelity_audit: reviewer/auditor id, source path/hash, checked locators, candidate visibility, whether a candidate-withheld extraction was completed, correction-search evidence path/hash, status pass | partial | fail, and notes. The summary itself is audited: every important paraphrase must be traceable to a quoted span or locator, and any unsupported summary sentence is removed or downgraded to inference. A core paper requires source_fidelity_audit.status: pass; partial or fail keeps the survey at coverage_incomplete for posterior admission.

Subagent literature audits are discovery/synthesis inputs only. The main coordinator must verify links, source form, identity triangulation, quoted spans, locators, and the distinction between source text and synthesis before any proposition can become a Gaia anchor.

7. Ground the claims

Hand the claims you extracted (with their evidence_uris) to the claim-grounding skill: it fetches each cited source and records a span-backed verdict, so "this paper says X" is verified against the source, not just asserted.

Gaia input is proposition-level, never paper-level: deep-read paper -> extracted proposition -> claim-grounding quote and locator -> mapped sub-criterion anchor. A paper, literature count, or subagent summary is not itself evidence in Gaia.

Optional: double-reader mode for load-bearing papers

The default flow produces each deep-read note with a single reader (step 2) and falsifies it against the source (step 6). For a load-bearing paper — one whose extracted propositions will anchor a likelihood, decide a close-prior verdict, or support a central claim of the survey — one reading, however carefully gated, still carries one reader's blind spots. For those papers the note can instead be produced in double-reader mode:

1. Two independent readers. Each reader runs the full step-2 deep-read on the same persisted source bytes and writes a complete note draft. Independence means readers from different model families where available, and at minimum separately-run readers that never see each other's drafts (no shared conversation, no shared draft) — two readers sharing one context are one reader with extra words.
2. A moderator pass. A third, separately-run participant compares the two drafts against the persisted source and produces the single KB note:
   • it merges agreed content — statements both readers extracted with compatible quotes and locators — into the note body;
   • it records every disagreement explicitly, each with a verbatim quote + locator from the source (the disputed passage itself, not either reader's paraphrase); where the source settles the point at that locator, the moderator resolves it from the source and says so;
   • it never resolves a disagreement by majority or by smoothing the language. Recruiting extra readers to outvote a reading settles nothing — only the source settles a reading — and a blended sentence both readers "could accept" hides the conflict instead of recording it. Whatever the source does not settle stays visible as an open item for the human, listed under ## Notes / Issues with both readings side by side.

Marking the note. A double-read note carries a Readers: line among the head metadata lines, in the same Field: value style as Verification status: (the auto-generated template does not emit it; the moderator adds it): Readers: <reader-1 id / model family>, <reader-2 id / model family>; moderator: <id / model family>. Keep both reader drafts alongside the persisted source so the merge and every recorded disagreement stay auditable. Single-reader notes omit the field.

Consequences for use. Merged agreed content is used like any other deep-read content and still goes through the step-6 source-fidelity gate (with a fresh reviewer — neither of the two readers nor the moderator) before anchoring anything: double-reading is a production discipline, not a replacement for that falsification pass, though it sharpens it — divergences arrive already localized. A proposition that is still an open disagreement is not evidence-ready: it must not anchor a likelihood, decide a close-prior verdict, or be cited as consensus until a human resolves the item.

When it is worth the cost. Double-reading doubles the reading work and adds a moderation pass; spend it only where a wrong extraction changes a decision — papers that anchor likelihoods, decide close-prior verdicts, or carry a central claim. Routine breadth reading — supporting / background roles, and core papers whose role is context rather than decision — stays single-reader by default.

What this skill is NOT

• Not a new literature subsystem — it orchestrates existing recipes + provider tools and fills the existing KB note template; it adds no *-mcp tool.
• Not a substitute for reading. It is the discipline that makes the deep-read happen and makes its depth checkable (filled fields + computed coverage + referential-integrity).
• Not the citation verifier — that is claim-grounding. This skill produces the notes and the survey; claim-grounding verifies the claims in them.