Math Doc Review

• Read the document linearly and log potential issues with exact locations (section title, equation number, line or paragraph reference).
• Check each claim against the framework anchors:
  • Are hypotheses stated and satisfied?
  • Are parameter ranges, dimensions, and domains respected?
  • Are definitions applied consistently?
  • Is any step relying on an external theorem or classical analysis argument not derived in the framework?

4) Classify and analyze

• For each issue, assign a severity and error type using references/review-taxonomy.md.
• Provide a framework-first explanation of why the issue is an error or a scope restriction.
• Propose a concrete fix: revise statements, add missing hypotheses, or add a new lemma/permit within the framework.

5) Produce the review artifact

• Create a review/ folder in the same directory as the reviewed file (if it does not exist).
• Create the review document using assets/review-template.md and fill it in.
• File naming: review/<basename>.review.md where <basename> is the reviewed file name without its extension.

Output requirements

• Use the template and fill every section relevant to the findings.
• Include a severity summary and an error log table.
• For each error, provide step-by-step fix guidance grounded in the framework.
• If a claim is valid only under restricted parameters (for example, 2D only), mark it as a scope restriction and specify the exact constraint.
• Avoid re-proving via classical analysis; require internal permits/lemmas instead.

Resources

• references/review-taxonomy.md for severity levels and error-type definitions.
• assets/review-template.md for the report structure.