{
  "id": "2026-09-06-source-corrections",
  "date": "2026-09-06",
  "status": "provisional editorial review",
  "reason": "Replay the existing Rosenshine–Meister dose correction across stale consumers; narrow a criticism after reading Reynolds/Hattan/Markham in full publisher HTML.",
  "boundary": "No new reading of the full final 1994 Rosenshine–Meister article. The 1993 report and 1994 abstract remain distinct. Raw Hirsch rhetoric is preserved.",
  "changes": [
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/summary/answer",
      "before": "Relevant prior knowledge has a strong effect when it matches the text. The typical magnitude varies, broad transfer is graded, and the evidence does not establish that no domain-general comprehension process exists. Bounded returns to repeated strategy practice support a practical allocation argument, but neither that result nor the cognitive mechanism by itself selects one common curriculum.",
      "after": "Relevant prior knowledge has a strong effect when it matches the text. The typical magnitude varies, broad transfer is graded, and the evidence does not establish that no domain-general comprehension process exists. Explicit strategy instruction can help, but its dose curve and its return per hour relative to knowledge building remain undetermined; neither finding selects one common curriculum."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/summary/scope",
      "before": "This dossier covers mechanism, matched-topic effects, magnitude, measurement, transfer, general-process claims, bounded strategy returns and the immediate curriculum bridge; it defers whole-program effectiveness to Dossier 2 and curricular selection, authority, Bildung and Didaktik to Dossier 4.",
      "after": "This dossier covers mechanism, matched-topic effects, magnitude, measurement, transfer, general-process claims, strategy efficacy and unknown dose and the immediate curriculum bridge; it defers whole-program effectiveness to Dossier 2 and curricular selection, authority, Bildung and Didaktik to Dossier 4."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/summary/scope_detail/includes/5",
      "before": "Bounded strategy returns",
      "after": "Strategy efficacy and unknown dose"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/evidence_appraisals/S0020/relation/0/type",
      "before": "supports_bounded_returns",
      "after": "reports_dose_claim_not_causal_test"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/evidence_appraisals/S0020/can_establish",
      "before": "The reviewed literature is consistent with bounded benefit and supports brief explicit strategy instruction.",
      "after": "The commentary recommends explicit brief strategy teaching and reports a saturation interpretation of prior reviews; it is not an experimental dose comparison."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/books_n",
      "before": 2,
      "after": 1
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/effect",
      "before": "Median effect size .32 on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter-developed tests. SECONDARY-VERIFIED — the primary article could not be opened; whether these are Cohen's d is unverified.",
      "after": "The 1994 journal abstract reports median effects of .32 on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter-developed tests. The full 1993 author report and tables were read; it covers 19 studies, whereas the 1994 abstract reports 16. The study-pool crosswalk remains unchecked."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/limits",
      "before": "Primary not read. Review drew substantially on unpublished dissertations.",
      "after": "Full 1993 author report and 1994 journal abstract read; full final 1994 journal article not read. Heterogeneous study-level session counts and significance categories do not identify a causal dose curve."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/status",
      "before": "established, OVER-READ ON DOSE. Verbatim (Blazer 2007, reporting the review): 'found no relationship between the number of sessions and the significance of results. The number of instructional sessions in the reviewed studies ranged from six to 100.' A null on dose is not a plateau. Contrary primary evidence: Westera & Moore (1995) — 95% of an extended (12-16 session) group gained vs 47% short (6-8) and 45% control; Takala (2006) — 10 sessions less effective than 15. The .32/.88 split IS a genuine construct-validity problem for the strategy literature and is Hirsch's point to make.",
      "after": "Strategy efficacy and measurement sensitivity supported; causal dose plateau and marginal instructional allocation undetermined. Secondary reports of later dose comparisons remain secondary, not newly primary-verified."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/verified_by",
      "before": "https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ500529 (16 studies); https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3102/00346543064004479; https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541081.pdf (Blazer 2007 READ — the verbatim dose sentence and Westera & Moore figures); https://blog.soton.ac.uk/edpsych/files/2021/06/Reciprocal-teaching-2019-Kirsty-Russell.pdf (READ — .88/.32 split, Takala). NOTE: resolutions.json resolved rosenshine_direct_instruction to 10.1007/bf00364747, a paper on HLA-DQ polymorphism — clearly wrong.",
      "after": "Full author report: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED356456.pdf (1993, 19 studies); journal abstract: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ500529 (1994, 16 studies). Review replayed 2026-09-06; no final-article full-text upgrade."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/8/design",
      "before": "Narrative review of eight prior quantitative reviews of reading-comprehension-strategy instruction. NOT primary research and NOT a formal meta-analysis — the registry's kind:study is wrong.",
      "after": "Commentary synthesizing eight prior quantitative reviews of reading-comprehension-strategy instruction; not a primary experiment or formal meta-analysis. Its saturation claim is an interpretation, not an experimentally identified dose curve."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/theses/canonical_propositions.json",
      "pointer": "/propositions/0/notes/evidence",
      "before": "Would be supported by: comparable readers diverging on texts as a function of topic knowledge (Recht & Leslie baseball study); comprehension-strategy instruction plateauing after a few weeks (Rosenshine); failure of general critical-thinking programmes to transfer. Would be undermined by: durable, transfer-general gains from strategy or thinking-skills instruction with knowledge held constant.",
      "after": "Would be supported by: comparable readers diverging on texts as a function of topic knowledge (Recht & Leslie baseball study); controlled evidence limiting dose and transfer from strategy instruction; failure of general critical-thinking programmes to transfer. The reviewed Rosenshine–Meister evidence does not establish a causal plateau or the absence of general comprehension processes. Would be undermined by: durable, transfer-general gains from strategy or thinking-skills instruction with knowledge held constant."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/9/availability_note",
      "before": "Open article; relevant publisher-hosted excerpts were reviewed, but the article was not read end to end.",
      "after": "Full publisher open-access HTML read from introduction through conclusion, including methods and Tables 1–4, on 2026-09-06. Companion remains abstract-only."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/9/provenance_sources/0/external_url",
      "before": "https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.575",
      "after": "https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rrq.575"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/9/provenance_sources/0/access_basis",
      "before": "excerpt",
      "after": "full-text"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/9/provenance_sources/0/review_basis",
      "before": "Relevant publisher-hosted sections and metadata were reviewed; this was not an end-to-end full-text read, so page-specific quotation claims remain unverified.",
      "after": "Full publisher HTML read 2026-09-06, introduction through conclusion including methods and Tables 1–4. First online 2024-09-05; publisher records an Alexander-citation correction on 2024-09-13. Methods RQ2, Table 2, Analyzing Specificity/Table 3, and Internal and External Validity Tradeoffs support construct and generalization cautions, not an isolated lexical causal explanation."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/9/one_line_summary",
      "before": "Reviews the 19 'baseball studies' (1978-2018) underlying the canonical knowledge-beats-skill demonstration and finds the knowledge measures are vocabulary/trivia-weighted and gender-loaded -- a construct-validity attack on Hirsch's showpiece evidence, not a denial that knowledge matters.",
      "after": "The review identifies restricted knowledge measures and comprehension texts in baseball studies, warranting caution about generalizing to curricular knowledge; it does not isolate a lexical causal mechanism or deny that knowledge matters."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/19/venue",
      "before": "American Educator (see also Willingham, 2006)",
      "after": "Teachers College Record, content ID 17701 (companion: Willingham 2006, American Educator)"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/19/doi_or_url",
      "before": "aft.org (American Educator archive)",
      "after": "http://www.danielwillingham.com/uploads/5/0/0/7/5007325/willingham&lovette_2014_can_reading_comprehension_be_taught_.pdf"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/19/availability_note",
      "before": "Quoted via the dossier's own prior citations (Card 8); direct re-fetch of the AFT archive page failed twice in this session (404, then wrong-issue redirect) and was not pursued further.",
      "after": "The full 2014 commentary and 2006 companion were read in the existing D1 primary-source review; the 2026-09-06 replay carries that access boundary into this profile."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/critics.json",
      "pointer": "/19/one_line_summary",
      "before": "Answers its own title question 'not really, beyond a point' -- and then recommends teaching the strategies anyway, briefly. Hirsch quotes the plateau finding and drops the recommendation, converting a bounded-returns finding into 'useless'; Hirsch elsewhere credits Willingham with restraining his own 'excessive absolutism'.",
      "after": "The commentary claims saturation and recommends explicit brief strategy instruction. Hirsch invokes that saturation claim and escalates it into uselessness, omitting the recommendation. Neither the commentary nor the reviewed Rosenshine–Meister comparison identifies a causal dose plateau; Hirsch elsewhere credits Willingham with restraining his excessive absolutism."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/positions.json",
      "pointer": "/39/claim",
      "before": "Across 19 'baseball studies' (1978-2018), 13 used the same two knowledge measures, which 'focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia', making the canonical knowledge-beats-skill demonstration closer to a lexical-access effect on a jargon-loaded text than evidence for broad background knowledge.",
      "after": "The baseball measures and comprehension texts provide a restricted test of the knowledge–comprehension relationship; extending those findings to broad curricular knowledge requires additional evidence."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/positions.json",
      "pointer": "/39/quote",
      "before": "focused heavily on vocabulary and baseball trivia",
      "after": "these results may not generalize to school texts"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/positions.json",
      "pointer": "/39/quote_source",
      "before": "dossier-draft",
      "after": "reynolds2025-primary · Analyzing Specificity, discussion following Table 3; publisher HTML read 2026-09-06"
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/positions.json",
      "pointer": "/62/claim",
      "before": "Willingham & Lovette answer 'Can reading comprehension be taught?' with 'not really, beyond a point' -- but then recommend still teaching the strategies, briefly; Hirsch quotes the plateau and drops the recommendation.",
      "after": "Willingham and Lovette report a saturation interpretation while recommending explicit brief strategy instruction. Hirsch invokes the saturation claim and drops the attached recommendation; the commentary does not experimentally identify the dose curve."
    },
    {
      "file": "data/critics/positions.json",
      "pointer": "/62/hirsch_response/quote",
      "before": "Hirsch treats the plateau citation (wkm:ch1_E20) and escalates it (wkm:ch1_C87) into a claim that strategy instruction is useless, dropping Willingham's own recommendation to still teach strategies briefly.",
      "after": "Hirsch invokes the commentary’s saturation claim (wkm:ch1_E20) and escalates it (wkm:ch1_C87) into uselessness, omitting its recommendation to teach strategies briefly. This describes his evidential use, not an established dose finding."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/meta/version",
      "before": "0.1.0",
      "after": "0.1.1"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/meta/updated",
      "before": "2026-08-24",
      "after": "2026-09-06"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/dossier.json",
      "pointer": "/review/date",
      "before": "2026-08-24",
      "after": "2026-09-06"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/sources.json",
      "pointer": "/sources/7/availability_note",
      "before": null,
      "after": "The final 1994 article is represented by its public journal abstract only. The earlier 1993 technical report is openly available and was read in full; availability of that report does not establish full access to the journal revision."
    }
  ],
  "retained": [
    {
      "file": "data/corpus_consolidated.json",
      "sha256": "67434c19769326bb222155ff32e636e700ac70c0ad951b15de0dc08522063f2f",
      "reason": "Raw corpus preserved"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d1-background-knowledge/backbone.json",
      "sha256": "6197f3a50706d28ca651c6ef065c07dd16a3848f2221a0735f84627e8e742afc",
      "reason": "Raw corpus preserved"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d2-knowledge-rich-curricula/backbone.json",
      "sha256": "233967edc5c855df8c17104503a4e743c7cac4d6e065e4a8c4c4b2dcd99ea276",
      "reason": "Raw corpus preserved"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d4-purpose-authority/backbone.json",
      "sha256": "122c9f95cb41f56c1d4b3dac9385e28729ca9d7190e40d514d9932d0ba3f7620",
      "reason": "Raw corpus preserved"
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d2-knowledge-rich-curricula/dossier.json",
      "sha256": "67f8179d4d51f092eebdad0e03778ab9a2f6d88bf6d8f59c21cbec0ed42b5deb",
      "reason": "Impact reviewed: no direct dose premise; empirical estimates and normative judgments retained."
    },
    {
      "file": "dossiers/d4-purpose-authority/dossier.json",
      "sha256": "47153e543e46a66a02f94343bad8ad729f30da747d44ffc1c5e078b06d753260",
      "reason": "Impact reviewed: no direct dose premise; empirical estimates and normative judgments retained."
    }
  ],
  "review_paths": [
    {
      "source": "S0362",
      "affected": [
        "D1:A7",
        "D1:C6",
        "D1:I6",
        "D1:C4",
        "D1:C7"
      ],
      "outcome": "Dose and marginal allocation remain undetermined; stale summary and derivative metadata corrected."
    },
    {
      "source": "reynolds2025-primary",
      "affected": [
        "D1:O1",
        "D1:A4",
        "D1:I3"
      ],
      "outcome": "Narrowed critic claim after primary reading; D1 construct objection and conclusion statuses retained."
    }
  ]
}