# MODERN External Reviewer Packet

This packet is for external reviewers assessing one bounded research object. A review does not create an advisory title, institutional partnership, supervision claim, or endorsement.

## Review object
Reviewer receives:
- repository/release URL
- exact version or commit
- README/methodology
- source-rights ledger
- validation instructions
- QA checklist

## Requested review
Please answer only what you can verify.

### Provenance
1. Can every published row/result be traced to a source or deterministic transformation?
2. Are retrieval dates, units, periods, and source institutions clear?
3. Is any source or transformation ambiguous enough to block release?

### Reproducibility
4. Can you run the stated validation/reproduction command?
5. Do the produced row counts, hashes, tables, or summary outputs match the release claims?
6. If not, describe the discrepancy precisely.

### Methodological judgment
7. Are comparability warnings and structural-break notes adequate?
8. Is any interpretation stronger than the evidence permits?
9. What is the single most important methodological weakness?

### Usefulness
10. What one change would make this research object more useful to an economist, analyst, or policy researcher?

## Decision
Choose one:
- **Approve** — no material blocker found.
- **Approve with minor corrections** — release is usable after listed corrections.
- **Major revision** — material issue must be resolved and rereviewed.
- **Do not release** — provenance, rights, reproducibility, or interpretation problem is fundamental.

## Evidence
Reviewer feedback should be archived as one of:
- GitHub issue/comment
- signed review note
- email retained by the Lab with permission to record reviewer name/status

Public acknowledgment occurs only with reviewer permission.