# Peer-review working draft — {{REVIEW_ID}}

> Private working document. Human review, policy checks, and factual verification are required. Do not submit this scaffold with unresolved placeholders. Do not make or announce an editorial decision.

## Intake record

- Reviewer capacity: `{{REVIEWER_CAPACITY}}`
- Peer-review model: `{{PEER_REVIEW_MODEL}}`
- Declared processing plan: `{{AI_PLAN}}`
- Manuscript text is not embedded by the generator.
- Reconfirm conflicts, competence limits, tool use, confidentiality, and deletion or retention obligations before submission.

# Comments to authors

## Evidence-bounded summary

[Write a neutral summary of the question, design, and principal claims. Do not invent findings or imply that unperformed analyses were run.]

## Strengths

[Identify specific strengths supported by a manuscript location or supplied material.]

## Major comments

### Major comment M1

- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or claim ID]
- Observation: [State what is reported, missing, inconsistent, or unsupported]
- Evidence or criterion: [Cite manuscript evidence, a method principle, venue policy, or reporting item]
- Why it matters: [Explain the consequence for validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or reporting]
- Requested action: [Request clarification, correction, analysis, evidence, or a bounded revision]

## Minor comments

### Minor comment m1

- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or reference ID]
- Observation: [State the local clarity, consistency, citation, figure, or reporting issue]
- Evidence or criterion: [Identify the relevant evidence or criterion]
- Why it matters: [Explain the reader-facing consequence]
- Requested action: [Request a specific correction or clarification]

## Methods, statistics, and reproducibility

[Summarize only assessed issues. Distinguish reporting gaps from design or analysis concerns and state where specialist review is needed.]

## Ethics, transparency, figures, tables, and citations

[Record specific, evidence-backed issues. Do not allege misconduct; route credible integrity concerns through the journal process.]

## Limitations of this review

[State competence limits, unavailable materials, analyses not independently reproduced, and unresolved uncertainty.]

# Confidential comments to editor

> Keep this channel separate from comments to authors. Follow the venue policy. Do not place ordinary scientific criticism only here.

## Reviewer disclosures

- Conflicts and editor clearance: [State the disclosed status without unnecessary personal detail]
- Competence limits or specialist review needed: [State areas]
- Assistance or tools used and required disclosure: [State policy-compliant details]
- Confidentiality or retention issue: [State any unresolved process concern]

## Editorial-process or integrity concerns

[Describe only substantiated process, ethics, confidentiality, or integrity concerns and their evidence locations. Avoid accusations and avoid an editorial outcome.]