cases/case30/grading_rubric.json

{
  "case_id": "Case30",
  "title": "When can a scattering model account for an attoclock offset?",
  "atoms": [
    {
      "criterion_id": "F1",
      "dimension": "F",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Derive or correctly instantiate the central-potential deflection and the task-specific outgoing half-scattering, tunnel-exit, vector-potential, and asymptotic-momentum mapping, consistently binding E0, A0, omega, Ip, intensity, units, and the declared exact or weak-field regime so the full scattering angle is not misidentified as the attoclock offset.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "Correct central-potential deflection is mapped to the outgoing half-offset, not the full angle.",
        "Field, exit and asymptotic momentum scales, units and declared exact or weak-field limits consistently identify the same physical observable."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Independent central-observable mapping foundation.",
        "The independent observable evidence-contract definition, screened-family calibration, and screened route retain their own credit when the central mapping is wrong; actual output consequences are judged only where that mapping damages the output.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "An exact outer tunnel-exit root instead of rho≈Ip/E0, retaining arctan rather than linearizing it, or evaluating the general central-potential scattering integral is accepted when the case identity, angle convention and approximation are declared. The full deflection relabeled as the offset is not equivalent."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray, Eckart and Kheifets (2018), pp. 123201-1–2, Eqs. (1), (2), (4)–(6), Fig. 1; intensity convention on p. 123201-3, Eq. (9)."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Central-object role: absence or material invalidity of the offset mapping/object triggers RC0. An atomic failure alone does not trigger RC0; in particular, a presentation/claim defect in O1 is distinct from an invalid object."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "F2",
      "dimension": "F",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Define an independently reconstructible offset-versus-intensity evidence contract that fixes the half-offset observable and extraction convention, units, Coulomb and screened parameter cases, underlying-data and presentation conventions, and explicit separation of exact, declared approximate, and external dynamical branches.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "Angle extraction, units, intensity and potential cases, underlying data and presentation conventions permit independent reconstruction.",
        "Exact, declared approximate and external dynamical branches are separated; this formulation may earn credit before output is produced."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Independent task-specific observable and evidence-contract definition; it can earn credit before any valid output is produced.",
        "Correct central mapping and screened-family foundations retain credit when an observable evidence convention is incomplete; any actual output consequence is judged only at the affected O/I/M item.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "An exact outer tunnel-exit root instead of rho≈Ip/E0, retaining arctan rather than linearizing it, or evaluating the general central-potential scattering integral is accepted when the case identity, angle convention and approximation are declared. The full deflection relabeled as the offset is not equivalent.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-2–4, Eqs. (2)–(6), (9), Figs. 3–4. Reconstructible submission and branch-separation requirements follow the stated examination task, not a source-specific file convention."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "F3",
      "dimension": "F",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Construct the Coulomb and finite-screening potential family at the common field-free binding energy $I_p=0.5$, determining Z_lambda for each finite lambda rather than allowing binding energy to drift.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "Each finite screening length has a field-free charge determination establishing ground-state energy -0.5 a.u.",
        "The family changes range at common binding energy, with the Coulomb reference correctly identified."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Independent family-identity foundation.",
        "The Coulomb branch and a correctly declared scattering method retain independent credit if screened charge calibration is wrong.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-3–4, Fig. 4 discussion: each screened target retains hydrogen binding energy $I_p=0.5$."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Indispensable-component role: absence or material invalidity of the equally bound screened-family identity or required family objects triggers RC1, if the central object is established. Failure of O2 presentation or claim adequacy alone is not an absent/invalid component."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "F4",
      "dimension": "F",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Provide a computable screened central-potential scattering route with the physical root or branch selected and the approximation level explicitly declared, without requiring the missing external correction or one source implementation.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The screened route is computable and selects a physical scattering root or outgoing branch.",
        "Its approximation level is explicit; no particular solver or omitted external correction is required."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Independent method foundation.",
        "Correct family calibration and Coulomb derivation retain credit if the screened route is incomplete.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-1–2, Eqs. (1), (3) and physical-root discussion; omitted correction acknowledged adjacent to Eq. (3)."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "O1",
      "dimension": "O",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Provide reconstructible Coulomb half-offset evidence over a claim-bearing intensity domain with adequate presentation of the material intensity dependence and the declared exact or weak-field approximation.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The correct Coulomb half-offset object exists in reconstructible submitted data.",
        "The presentation resolves claim-bearing intensity dependence, and claims remain within its declared model and approximation domain.",
        "Record object_valid, presentation_adequate and claim_adequate separately; all three must hold for 0.5."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "F1: Derive or correctly instantiate the central-potential deflection and the task-specific outgoing half-scattering, tunnel-exit, vector-potential, and asymptotic-momentum mapping, consistently binding E0, A0, omega, Ip, intensity, units, and the declared exact or weak-field regime so the full scattering angle is not misidentified as the attoclock offset. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The Coulomb output requires the correct central half-angle and field/exit mapping; the independently scored observable evidence-contract definition is not used as a mechanical output gate.",
        "The independent observable definition and screened-family foundations retain credit if the Coulomb output is invalid; transfer conclusions are affected only when they truly depend on that output.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "An exact outer tunnel-exit root instead of rho≈Ip/E0, retaining arctan rather than linearizing it, or evaluating the general central-potential scattering integral is accepted when the case identity, angle convention and approximation are declared. The full deflection relabeled as the offset is not equivalent.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-2–3, Eqs. (2), (4)–(6), Fig. 3 (classical branches only)."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Central-object role: absence or material invalidity of the offset mapping/object triggers RC0. An atomic failure alone does not trigger RC0; in particular, a presentation/claim defect in O1 is distinct from an invalid object."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "O2",
      "dimension": "O",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Provide a reconstructible same-Ip screening family including the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and enough candidate-chosen intermediate cases to expose robust ordering, changed intensity dependence, and transition across potential range.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "Reconstructible equally bound Coulomb, $\\lambda=1$ and sufficiently informative intermediate cases exist.",
        "The representation exposes robust ordering, changed intensity dependence and transition across range without asserting trends contradicted by the data.",
        "Record object_valid, presentation_adequate and claim_adequate separately; all three must hold for 0.5."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "F3: Construct the Coulomb and finite-screening potential family at the common field-free binding energy $I_p=0.5$, determining Z_lambda for each finite lambda rather than allowing binding energy to drift. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "F4: Provide a computable screened central-potential scattering route with the physical root or branch selected and the approximation level explicitly declared, without requiring the missing external correction or one source implementation. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The screened output must preserve common binding energy and come from a declared computable screened-scattering route.",
        "The Coulomb output retains independent credit when the screened family is absent or miscalibrated.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-3–4, Fig. 4 and adjacent equal-binding/range-response discussion (robust structure, not pointwise matching)."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Indispensable-component role: absence or material invalidity of the equally bound screened-family identity or required family objects triggers RC1, if the central object is established. Failure of O2 presentation or claim adequacy alone is not an absent/invalid component."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "O3",
      "dimension": "O",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Provide discriminating reconstructible comparisons within the screened family and against the Coulomb reference that expose the claimed regime or applicability boundary while keeping approximation and case identities explicit.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "Comparisons within the screened family and against Coulomb are reconstructible and discriminating for the claimed regime or applicability boundary.",
        "Observable, units, binding energy and approximation identities permit a fair comparison.",
        "Record object_valid, presentation_adequate and claim_adequate separately; all three must hold for 0.5."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "O1: Provide reconstructible Coulomb half-offset evidence over a claim-bearing intensity domain with adequate presentation of the material intensity dependence and the declared exact or weak-field approximation. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "O2: Provide a reconstructible same-Ip screening family including the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and enough candidate-chosen intermediate cases to expose robust ordering, changed intensity dependence, and transition across potential range. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The cross-family comparison requires valid Coulomb and screened output objects.",
        "Correct foundations and each valid family remain scoreable when comparison presentation or common-case binding is weak.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 comparison and classical-applicability discussion."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "I1",
      "dimension": "I",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "From the candidate-presented Coulomb output, identify the supported decreasing intensity dependence and weak-field $I^{-1/2}$ scaling regime without promoting it to an unsupported universal law.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate identifies the decreasing Coulomb dependence and the supported weak-field $I^{-1/2}$ regime in their own evidence.",
        "No unsupported universal power law is asserted."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "O1: Provide reconstructible Coulomb half-offset evidence over a claim-bearing intensity domain with adequate presentation of the material intensity dependence and the declared exact or weak-field approximation. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "Scaling identification must come from the candidate's valid output; examiner/source recognition cannot be backfilled as I credit.",
        "Screening-family and applicability-boundary identification remain separately scoreable.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "An exact outer tunnel-exit root instead of rho≈Ip/E0, retaining arctan rather than linearizing it, or evaluating the general central-potential scattering integral is accepted when the case identity, angle convention and approximation are declared. The full deflection relabeled as the offset is not equivalent.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-2–3, Eqs. (5)–(6), Fig. 3 and intensity-scaling discussion."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "I2",
      "dimension": "I",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "From the candidate-presented screened family, identify the robust long-range-to-Coulomb approach, changed intensity dependence, intermediate transition or crossover, and strong-screening suppression/order actually resolved by the data.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate identifies long-range approach toward Coulomb, range-dependent intensity response, intermediate transition and strong-screening suppression/order actually supported by their submitted family.",
        "Do not award for a structure noticed only by the examiner or for prose contradicted by submitted curves."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "O2: Provide a reconstructible same-Ip screening family including the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and enough candidate-chosen intermediate cases to expose robust ordering, changed intensity dependence, and transition across potential range. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The candidate must identify the family structure from its own valid screened outputs; examiner readback cannot create I credit.",
        "Coulomb scaling and applicability-boundary identifications remain independent.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 and adjacent tunnel-width versus screening-length explanation."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "I3",
      "dimension": "I",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Identify from the candidate's computed scales and comparisons where the declared classical screened-scattering description loses validation force. Comparing the electron de Broglie wavelength with the screening length is the source-supported example, but any physically equivalent semiclassical-validity or scale-competition criterion is accepted when it has the same discriminating force.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate identifies a classical-applicability boundary from their own computed scales and discriminating comparisons.",
        "A semiclassical-validity or scale-competition criterion with equivalent discriminating force is sufficient; no unique wavelength formula is prescribed."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "O3: Provide discriminating reconstructible comparisons within the screened family and against the Coulomb reference that expose the claimed regime or applicability boundary while keeping approximation and case identities explicit. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The applicability boundary must be identified from the candidate's discriminating comparison; examiner knowledge cannot be backfilled as I credit.",
        "The two family signal-identification atoms retain credit if the applicability boundary is unresolved.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "A de Broglie-wavelength/screening-length comparison is sufficient but not exclusive. Candidate-derived exit/impact-distance versus screening-range competition with explicit quantum-spreading and under-barrier limitations, or another equally discriminating semiclassical-breakdown argument, is accepted; a separate wavelength calculation is not compulsory.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 discussion of wavelength/range competition; p. 123201-2, Eq. (4) and weak-field assumptions. Equivalent scale arguments are accepted by the examination criteria."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M1",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Use the candidate-identified Coulomb signal and the linked impact-parameter/exit and asymptotic-momentum scales to derive and explain the weak-field $I^{-1/2}$ dependence within its supported regime.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate links their identified Coulomb signal to exit/impact and asymptotic-momentum scales.",
        "The linked scales derive and explain $I^{-1/2}$ within the supported weak-field regime."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "F1: Derive or correctly instantiate the central-potential deflection and the task-specific outgoing half-scattering, tunnel-exit, vector-potential, and asymptotic-momentum mapping, consistently binding E0, A0, omega, Ip, intensity, units, and the declared exact or weak-field regime so the full scattering angle is not misidentified as the attoclock offset. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "I1: From the candidate-presented Coulomb output, identify the supported decreasing intensity dependence and weak-field $I^{-1/2}$ scaling regime without promoting it to an unsupported universal law. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "Mechanism credit requires the candidate's valid central scale mapping and its own identification of the Coulomb signal; examiner inference cannot be backfilled as M credit.",
        "Screening-range mechanisms retain independent credit if only the Coulomb scaling derivation is incomplete.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "An exact outer tunnel-exit root instead of rho≈Ip/E0, retaining arctan rather than linearizing it, or evaluating the general central-potential scattering integral is accepted when the case identity, angle convention and approximation are declared. The full deflection relabeled as the offset is not equivalent."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-2, Eqs. (2), (4)–(6) and kinetic/potential scale explanation."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M2",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Explain how competition among exit/impact-parameter scale, asymptotic kinetic scale, and screened-potential range changes the offset response as lambda is reduced.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate connects the declared screened route and their identified family structure to competition of exit/impact distance, kinetic energy and interaction range.",
        "The reasoning explains the change in offset response as screening length is reduced, not merely a descriptive range label."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "F4: Provide a computable screened central-potential scattering route with the physical root or branch selected and the approximation level explicitly declared, without requiring the missing external correction or one source implementation. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "I2: From the candidate-presented screened family, identify the robust long-range-to-Coulomb approach, changed intensity dependence, intermediate transition or crossover, and strong-screening suppression/order actually resolved by the data. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The range mechanism requires a declared screened route and candidate-identified family structure.",
        "Coulomb scaling, transition continuity, and validity-boundary reasoning retain independent credit when this causal link is incomplete.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-2, 123201-4, Eq. (3), Fig. 4 and exit-width/range competition."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M3",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Use the intermediate screened cases to establish a continuous transition or crossover across potential range rather than infer universal behavior from only the Coulomb or strongest-screening endpoint.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate uses informative intermediate cases and a valid cross-family comparison to establish continuous transition or changed response across potential range.",
        "The conclusion is not inferred solely from either endpoint."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "I2: From the candidate-presented screened family, identify the robust long-range-to-Coulomb approach, changed intensity dependence, intermediate transition or crossover, and strong-screening suppression/order actually resolved by the data. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "O3: Provide discriminating reconstructible comparisons within the screened family and against the Coulomb reference that expose the claimed regime or applicability boundary while keeping approximation and case identities explicit. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The transfer claim requires candidate-identified family structure and a valid cross-family comparison.",
        "Other scale and applicability mechanisms retain credit if transition continuity is under-resolved.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 and conclusion: smooth transition across screening, not a universal inference from $\\lambda=1$."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M4",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Explain, from the candidate's own scale analysis, why and where a classical screened-scattering calculation ceases to validate the quantum response by itself. The source-supported de Broglie-wavelength/screening-length comparison is one sufficient route, not an exclusive phrase or construction; a physically equivalent semiclassical-breakdown argument receives the same credit. Do not claim an unsubmitted source quantum curve as submitted evidence.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate explains why and where the classical model cannot alone validate quantum response using their own identified applicability boundary.",
        "A physically equivalent semiclassical-breakdown analysis receives the same credit as a wavelength/range comparison; an examiner-supplied limitation does not."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "I3: Identify from the candidate's computed scales and comparisons where the declared classical screened-scattering description loses validation force. Comparing the electron de Broglie wavelength with the screening length is the source-supported example, but any physically equivalent semiclassical-validity or scale-competition criterion is accepted when it has the same discriminating force. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The candidate must explain the validity loss from its own identified applicability boundary; examiner knowledge cannot be backfilled as M credit.",
        "Correct Coulomb and screening-range mechanisms retain independent credit if quantum-validity discussion is weak.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "A de Broglie-wavelength/screening-length comparison is sufficient but not exclusive. Candidate-derived exit/impact-distance versus screening-range competition with explicit quantum-spreading and under-barrier limitations, or another equally discriminating semiclassical-breakdown argument, is accepted; a separate wavelength calculation is not compulsory.",
        "A justified restriction to the established model/domain can resolve an unsupported extrapolation without performing TDSE/iSURF or CTMC. It does not validate the entire scan, establish a universal timing interpretation, or repair a false signal or mechanism."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 classical-versus-quantum applicability discussion; p. 123201-2, Eq. (4) assumptions. Functionally equivalent validity arguments are examination acceptance routes."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M5",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Decide, from the candidate's Coulomb and screened results, how far the Coulomb-derived intensity inference transfers across the same-binding-energy family and where that transfer fails or changes character.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate's Coulomb and screening mechanisms support a decision about transfer across the common-binding family.",
        "The decision specifies where Coulomb-derived intensity inference fails or changes character."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "M1: Use the candidate-identified Coulomb signal and the linked impact-parameter/exit and asymptotic-momentum scales to derive and explain the weak-field $I^{-1/2}$ dependence within its supported regime. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "M2: Explain how competition among exit/impact-parameter scale, asymptotic kinetic scale, and screened-potential range changes the offset response as lambda is reduced. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The transfer decision needs the candidate's Coulomb and screening mechanisms rather than examiner-supplied comparison.",
        "A bounded model-usefulness or timing-scope conclusion can remain independently correct even if transfer detail is incomplete.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 range dependence and conclusion."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M6",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "Reach an evidence-bounded decision about when the post-release scattering model is useful, tying that decision to specific computed Coulomb/screening structures and the declared approximation boundary.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate's own transfer assessment supports when post-release scattering is useful.",
        "The usefulness conclusion is tied to specific computed structures and declared approximation limits."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "M5: Decide, from the candidate's Coulomb and screened results, how far the Coulomb-derived intensity inference transfers across the same-binding-energy family and where that transfer fails or changes character. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The usefulness decision requires the candidate's own cross-family transfer assessment; examiner synthesis cannot be backfilled as M credit.",
        "The universal-interpretation limit and honest scope remain separately scoreable.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "A justified restriction to the established model/domain can resolve an unsupported extrapolation without performing TDSE/iSURF or CTMC. It does not validate the entire scan, establish a universal timing interpretation, or repair a false signal or mechanism.",
        "Plots, tables, transformed comparisons or other reconstructible representations are accepted if they preserve observable, case and units and expose the claimed structure. No source grid, exact crossover coordinate, plotting range, pixel tolerance, color or line style is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-1–2 and 123201-4–5, model assumptions, Fig. 4 discussion and conclusion."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "M7",
      "dimension": "M",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "State what the visible model evidence does and does not establish about a universal physical or tunnelling-time interpretation, without extrapolating a single endpoint or classical calculation to unsupported atom-specific dynamics.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "The candidate grounds the universal-interpretation limit in their own transfer decision and identified applicability boundary.",
        "Neither a single endpoint nor a classical calculation is promoted to proof of universally finite or zero tunnelling time or unsupported atom-specific dynamics."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "M5: Decide, from the candidate's Coulomb and screened results, how far the Coulomb-derived intensity inference transfers across the same-binding-energy family and where that transfer fails or changes character. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "I3: Identify from the candidate's computed scales and comparisons where the declared classical screened-scattering description loses validation force. Comparing the electron de Broglie wavelength with the screening length is the source-supported example, but any physically equivalent semiclassical-validity or scale-competition criterion is accepted when it has the same discriminating force. This supplies a necessary physical/evidential premise, not an automatic whole-score erasure.",
        "The interpretation limit must follow from the candidate's own transfer decision and identified applicability boundary, not examiner-supplied cautions.",
        "A correct positive usefulness conclusion and honest scope retain credit if the universal-interpretation wording is incomplete.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "A justified restriction to the established model/domain can resolve an unsupported extrapolation without performing TDSE/iSURF or CTMC. It does not validate the entire scan, establish a universal timing interpretation, or repair a false signal or mechanism."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-1 abstract and pp. 123201-4–5 conclusion; Fig. 5 is context for target-specific testing, not required CTMC reproduction."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Principal-mechanism role: an absent/wrong indispensable causal explanation or commissioned conclusion triggers RC2 when valid required signals/components exist. Evaluate the material role separately from the half-point award."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "V1",
      "dimension": "V",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "If the candidate's root/branch choice, same-Ip calibration, intensity/screening sampling, numerical representation, or output morphology raises a concrete material risk to the screened-family claim, provide discriminating evidence or restrict the claim; otherwise record N/A without claiming evidence.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "When a concrete root/branch, calibration, sampling, numerical-representation or morphology risk is triggered, candidate evidence discriminates it or appropriately restricts the threatened claim.",
        "A generic refinement or caveat is not automatically sufficient; the risk must be material and candidate-arising."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Trigger only a concrete numerical, branch, calibration, sampling or representation threat arising in the candidate's method/data/claim.",
        "If no such risk is triggered in an otherwise scientifically assessable submission, record N/A and award the fixed 0.5 point to preserve the ten-point denominator; N/A is not positive validation evidence and does not block RC4.",
        "If triggered, award 0.5 only for discriminating evidence or an adequate evidence-based restriction; unresolved risk receives 0.",
        "An empty, scientifically unassessable required submission receives 0.0/RC0 before atom or N/A bookkeeping; N/A cannot generate points for it."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Triggered validation is evaluated independently and only for a concrete risk arising from the candidate's own method, data, or claim.",
        "A localized numerical or calibration defect affects only the evidence and dependent claim it damages; an absent risk is N/A and creates no deduction.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any candidate-presented analytic check, alternative calculation, intervention, estimator, cross-representation comparison or justified restriction is accepted if it can expose the particular threatened conclusion. No universal checklist or unique reliability procedure is required.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction.",
        "Any intermediate screening lengths broad enough to resolve transfer are accepted with the Coulomb and $\\lambda=1$ endpoints and common field-free binding energy. No eight-value screening list, charge table, prescribed radial grid or calibration solver is required."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-1–2, Eqs. (1)–(4), and p. 123201-4, Fig. 4; risk-triggered award and N/A treatment are examination scoring rules, not claims made by the article."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Material-validation role: an unresolved triggered threat can yield RC3 only after signals and principal mechanisms are substantially supported and the six-part material-risk burden is met. No trigger means N/A, not an automatic downgrade."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "V2",
      "dimension": "V",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "If the candidate makes a quantum, real-atom, or universal timing inference, or its own scales expose a material breakdown of classical scattering, supply functionally equivalent discriminating evidence or restrict that inference; otherwise record N/A without claiming evidence.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "When quantum, real-atom or universal timing inference is made, or candidate scales expose material classical-applicability breakdown, discriminating evidence or a justified restriction resolves the threatened inference.",
        "Numerical agreement between implementations is not alone physical validation of a shared weak-field launch assumption."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Trigger a candidate's quantum, real-atom or universal timing extrapolation, or candidate scales exposing a material physical-applicability threat.",
        "If no such risk is triggered in an otherwise scientifically assessable submission, record N/A and award the fixed 0.5 point to preserve the ten-point denominator; N/A is not positive validation evidence and does not block RC4.",
        "If triggered, award 0.5 only for discriminating evidence or an adequate evidence-based restriction; unresolved risk receives 0.",
        "An empty, scientifically unassessable required submission receives 0.0/RC0 before atom or N/A bookkeeping; N/A cannot generate points for it."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "The atom activates only for a concrete extrapolation or validity risk raised by the candidate's method, data, or conclusion.",
        "Absent risk is N/A; when triggered, accept any discriminator with the required force and affect only the threatened conclusion.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "Any candidate-presented analytic check, alternative calculation, intervention, estimator, cross-representation comparison or justified restriction is accepted if it can expose the particular threatened conclusion. No universal checklist or unique reliability procedure is required.",
        "A de Broglie-wavelength/screening-length comparison is sufficient but not exclusive. Candidate-derived exit/impact-distance versus screening-range competition with explicit quantum-spreading and under-barrier limitations, or another equally discriminating semiclassical-breakdown argument, is accepted; a separate wavelength calculation is not compulsory.",
        "A justified restriction to the established model/domain can resolve an unsupported extrapolation without performing TDSE/iSURF or CTMC. It does not validate the entire scan, establish a universal timing interpretation, or repair a false signal or mechanism."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), p. 123201-2, Eq. (4), barrier-suppression and weak-field assumptions; p. 123201-4, Fig. 4 quantum-applicability discussion, Fig. 5 and conclusion. Risk-triggered scoring is an examination rule."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "Material-validation role: an unresolved triggered threat can yield RC3 only after signals and principal mechanisms are substantially supported and the six-part material-risk burden is met. No trigger means N/A, not an automatic downgrade."
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "V3",
      "dimension": "V",
      "points": 0.5,
      "scientific_requirement": "State an evidence-based scope that separates the visible analytic/numerical scattering study from unsupported high-cost TDSE/iSURF, CTMC, pointwise source-curve, real-atom, quantum-validation, or universal tunnelling-time claims.",
      "award_conditions": [
        "An evidence-based scope separates the submitted reduced scattering study from unperformed TDSE/iSURF, CTMC, real-atom, quantum-validation or universal timing claims.",
        "Honest limitations are independently judgeable but do not repair a wrong signal or mechanism."
      ],
      "applicability_and_na": [
        "Applicable to the stated research commission; N/A is not permitted."
      ],
      "dependencies": [
        "Honest scope is independently judgeable and cannot depend on an upstream output or inference.",
        "Award correct evidence-based limitation independently; it does not make a wrong observable, family, or mechanism correct.",
        "Propagate only the exact failed fact: identify what this obligation needs and why the candidate has not established it independently. A missing remainder of a composite upstream item does not erase a correct independent downstream fact; examiner discovery cannot supply candidate identification or inference."
      ],
      "equivalent_evidence": [
        "A justified restriction to the established model/domain can resolve an unsupported extrapolation without performing TDSE/iSURF or CTMC. It does not validate the entire scan, establish a universal timing interpretation, or repair a false signal or mechanism.",
        "Converged direct classical central-potential integration, the printed leading screened approximation, or another physically justified representation is accepted with disclosed approximation level and the same claim-bearing structures. The omitted correction cited by the article is not required and prevents a demand for exact pointwise reproduction."
      ],
      "source_support": [
        "Bray et al. (2018), pp. 123201-3–5, TDSE/iSURF description, Figs. 4–5 and conclusion; examination task explicitly excludes regenerating TDSE/iSURF and CTMC."
      ],
      "rc_relation": "No direct closure trigger. The criterion can affect a truly dependent scientific claim only through the exact failed premise; its own point loss does not automatically lower Research Closure."
    }
  ],
  "case_scientific_rules": [
    "Twenty binary criteria each award 0 or 0.5; sum to 10.0. Dimension maxima are F=2.0, O=1.5, I=1.5, M=3.5, V=1.5. Research Closure does not cap, floor, multiply or correct the atomic score.",
    "The commissioned observable is the outgoing half-deflection of post-release central-potential scattering. For an attractive potential, $\\theta=2\\int_{r_0}^{\\infty}\\frac{\\rho/r^2}{\\sqrt{1-(\\rho/r)^2-2V(r)/v_\\infty^2}}\\,dr-\\pi$, with r0 the physical closest-approach root; $\\theta_A=\\theta/2$, with a declared consistent sign convention.",
    "For Coulomb scattering $\\tan(\\theta/2)=Z/(v_\\infty^2\\rho)$, $v_\\infty=A_0=E_0/\\omega$, and $\\theta_A=\\arctan[Z/(A_0^2\\rho)]$. The full deflection is not the attoclock offset. $\\omega=0.057$, $I_p=0.5$ and $I=2E_0^2$ are the stated atomic-unit conventions.",
    "With $\\rho\\approx I_p/E_0$ and the small-angle approximation, $\\theta_A\\approx\\omega^2Z/(E_0 I_p)$, hence $I^{-1/2}$. The kinetic scale $v_\\infty^2/2$ grows as I; the Coulomb potential scale $Z/\\rho$ grows as $I^{1/2}$, yielding the linked scaling. Finite-angle or exact-exit departures must be distinguished from a false observable.",
    "The exact Coulomb outer exit solves $Z/r+E_0r=I_p$: $r_{\\mathrm{out}}=I_p/(2E_0)+\\sqrt{I_p^2/(4E_0^2)-Z/E_0}$. The double-root barrier threshold is $E_{\\mathrm{BSI}}=I_p^2/(4Z)$, equal to 0.0625 for the Coulomb reference. Low gamma alone does not establish the separate sub-barrier or weak-field condition; this Coulomb threshold is not a universal screened-target threshold.",
    "For the leading screened approximation, $\\tan(\\theta/2)=Z_\\lambda e^{-1/z_0}/(v_\\infty^2\\rho)$, with z0 the physical root of $1-(\\rho/\\lambda)^2z^2-(d/\\lambda)z e^{-1/z}=0$ and $d=2Z_\\lambda/v_\\infty^2$. This approximation is an accepted route, not the only allowed implementation; direct classical integration is also accepted.",
    "The screened expression omits an external correction acknowledged by the article. It must not be represented as exact quantum dynamics, and the missing correction cannot be made a candidate duty or used to impose exact pointwise screened-angle or crossover agreement.",
    "Each finite-lambda potential must have field-free ground-state energy -0.5; fixing Z across screened cases while claiming equal binding energies invalidates that family comparison. Absolute calibration identity matters, not merely internal ordering or a relative shift.",
    "The required family includes the Coulomb limit, $\\lambda=1$ and enough candidate-chosen intermediate lengths to test transfer. No fixed intermediate list, charge table, intensity grid, radial discretization, solver, tolerance, figure count, panel order, plotting range or source curve style is prescribed.",
    "Long ranges approach Coulomb response; decreasing range changes the intensity dependence, intermediate cases resolve the transition, and strong screening suppresses the offset over the relevant regime. Crossover means screening-dependent change of response, not a compulsory curve intersection or an exact turning coordinate; not every finite-range curve must turn over.",
    "The scale competition involves exit/impact distance, asymptotic kinetic energy and potential range. When the electron wavelength becomes comparable to range, classical screened scattering alone cannot validate the quantum response. An equally discriminating candidate-derived semiclassical-validity or exit/range argument with explicit quantum limitations is accepted.",
    "Offset data can show suppressed, increasing or turning-over screened responses while the Coulomb branch decreases. A candidate's claim that all curves decrease when their own family contradicts that claim is a local claim/identification failure, not proof that no output objects exist.",
    "A one-endpoint observation cannot establish transfer across the family or universally finite/zero tunnelling time. Real-atom or quantum-dynamical conclusions require corresponding evidence only when claimed; hidden CTMC fits, source TDSE flattening and atom-specific departures are not required outputs.",
    "For each output distinguish object_valid, presentation_adequate and claim_adequate. Correct data alone do not create candidate identification or physical inference. Examiner inspection/reconstruction can verify an object but cannot backfill missing candidate I, M or V evidence.",
    "A full-angle substitution damages the central observable and claims actually relying on it; independent evidence conventions, calibration or method work remain separately judgeable. Binding-energy drift damages the screened-family comparison and dependent transfer claims, not an independently correct Coulomb branch.",
    "If a required screened component is absent, preserve correct Coulomb work and restrict only dependent claims. If signals are valid but mechanism is absent/wrong, preserve valid output work. Do not add a second generic incompleteness penalty.",
    "Charge a numerical defect where it materially damages evidence; affect inference only if the same defect makes that inference false or unsupported. No separate numerical-reliability, missing-convergence or missing-self-check penalty exists.",
    "Dependencies propagate failed facts, not unrelated remainders: name the failed premise, the downstream obligation needing it and why independent candidate-presented evidence does not establish that obligation. Preserve unaffected subobjects/branches, independent reasoning and honest limitations.",
    "V1 and V2 activate only for concrete candidate-arising material risks. Functionally equivalent discriminating evidence or a justified restriction is accepted; mere numerical consistency cannot validate a shared physical launch assumption. V3 is an unconditional evidence-based scope obligation.",
    "Before RC3, establish all six: the concrete failure mode; its origin in the candidate method/data/claim; a fair stated-task or standard-knowledge basis; the threatened central conclusion; why submitted evidence cannot expose/exclude it; and examples of functionally equivalent resolution or restriction. A generic opportunity to do more tests is insufficient.",
    "Reference comparison concerns physical identity and robust structure, not pixels. Use bounded source/reference readback only to resolve a material question about representation, root/branch, resolved family structure or applicability. Conflicting or insufficient references require a bounded unresolved decision rather than an invented tolerance; readback creates no separate penalty or candidate duty.",
    "Derive descriptive RC from required claim-role facts independently of atomic awards, selecting the lowest failed required role across the Coulomb, screened-family and applicability/interpretive-scope claims. A presentation/claim-adequacy point loss is not automatically invalidity of an output object.",
    "A valid candidate-caused timeout/incomplete attempt with no scientifically assessable required submission has score 0.0 and RC0 before atom/N/A bookkeeping. An assessable incomplete submission is graded normally from submitted evidence, without using unsubmitted scratch or run logs as scientific answers."
  ],
  "closure_requirements": {
    "RC0": [
      "Apply when the central Coulomb half-offset mapping or output object is absent or materially invalid (the required central-object roles carried by F1 and O1). Examples include using the full deflection as the offset or an unrelated observable.",
      "A failed O1 presentation/claim condition alone does not prove central-object invalidity. Record actual gate facts separately from the atomic award.",
      "If there is no scientifically assessable required submission, the terminal 0.0/RC0 disposition applies before N/A or twenty-criterion summation."
    ],
    "RC1": [
      "The central Coulomb object is established, but the indispensable equally bound screened-family identity or required output components are absent/invalid (roles carried by F3 and O2).",
      "Required components are the Coulomb reference, $\\lambda=1$ endpoint, an intermediate screening comparison broad enough to test transfer and the common-Ip identity; no hidden eight-curve list is required.",
      "O2 losing a point because the candidate misstates an existing valid family does not alone establish RC1. Preserve correct independent Coulomb work."
    ],
    "RC2": [
      "Valid required signal objects/components exist, but the Coulomb intensity-scale mechanism is absent/wrong (M1 required role), or a principal screened-family mechanism is absent/wrong.",
      "The screened-family mechanism roles require exit/impact–kinetic–range competition (M2), evidence-based continuous transition across informative intermediate cases (M3), and why/where classical scattering cannot alone validate quantum response (M4), accepting equivalent validity arguments.",
      "The co-primary interpretive-scope claim requires the candidate's evidence-bounded model-usefulness decision (M6) and universal-interpretation limit (M7). Their premises include their transfer assessment (M5), their own applicability identification (I3), and valid candidate-presented/identified evidence; examiner synthesis cannot close these roles.",
      "Wrong identification of screening-dependent trends can leave an indispensable mechanism/commissioned conclusion unsupported even when the numerical family exists. A point loss alone does not decide whether that material role has failed."
    ],
    "RC3": [
      "Signals and all indispensable principal mechanisms/conclusions are substantially supported, but an applicable concrete numerical-validation risk (V1) or physical-applicability/quantum/real-atom/universal-timing risk (V2) remains unresolved and inadequately restricted.",
      "Numerical threats can arise from physical root/branch choice, fixed-binding calibration, sampling that hides material transition, or numerical/presentational morphology. Physical threats can arise from extrapolation or candidate scales that invalidate the weak-field/classical interpretation.",
      "For every RC3 finding record all six: concrete failure; origin in candidate work; fair task/standard-knowledge basis; threatened central conclusion; insufficiency of submitted evidence; and functionally equivalent evidence or scope restriction that could resolve it.",
      "Gamma at or below one does not exclude barrier suppression; a Coulomb-reference field above Ip^2/(4Z) used as weak-field tunnelling evidence can trigger V2. No compulsory all-target barrier computation or unique validation recipe is added.",
      "Resolved evidence-based restriction can remove an unsupported broader claim; a generic caveat or agreement of algorithms sharing the same invalid physical premise is insufficient."
    ],
    "RC4": [
      "All indispensable and co-primary scientific claim roles close: correct Coulomb mapping/object and scale mechanism; valid same-Ip screened family with required endpoint/intermediate coverage; screening-range competition, continuous response transition and equivalent classical-validity explanation; and supported model-usefulness/universal-interpretation conclusions.",
      "Applicable concrete numerical and physical/interpretive risks are discriminated or honestly restricted, with no unresolved material ambiguity. All required roles use candidate evidence rather than examiner-created identification or reasoning.",
      "V1/V2 with no triggered risk are N/A: they neither block closure nor supply positive validation evidence. V3 remains applicable and evidence-based; honest scope never repairs a false object or mechanism.",
      "Classification uses required-role trigger facts, not a score threshold, automatic dimension sequence or checklist of methods. Select the lowest required-role failure if several occur; no score ceiling/floor is imposed."
    ]
  },
  "references": [
    {
      "citation": "A. W. Bray, S. Eckart, and A. S. Kheifets, Keldysh-Rutherford Model for the Attoclock, Physical Review Letters 121, 123201 (2018).",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.123201",
      "anchors": [
        "pp. 123201-1–2, Eqs. (1)–(6), Fig. 1",
        "p. 123201-3, Eq. (9), Fig. 3",
        "pp. 123201-3–4, Fig. 4 and adjacent screening/applicability discussion",
        "pp. 123201-4–5, Fig. 5 and conclusion; quantum/real-atom context only"
      ],
      "scientific_scope": "Scattering-angle identities, weak-field assumptions, equal-binding screened potentials, screening-dependent response, and the limits of the classical interpretation. Quantum and CTMC results provide context; they are not required candidate calculations or pointwise targets."
    }
  ]
}