lit-review — no shortcuts

A literature review fails silently. Every other check in this harness fails loudly — a control that doesn't recover the planted answer, digits that disagree with the independent route. A missed paper produces no error message: the review reads as complete, the claim goes out, and the miss surfaces later, from a referee or from the missed author.

Examined afterward, every miss traces to a shortcut that felt reasonable at the time: the searchers verified the papers they already knew instead of hunting the ones they didn't; queries stopped a year or two short of the present; abstracts were read where full texts were owed; a paywall quietly downgraded a paper from "read" to "skimmed". None of these announce themselves. The protocol's answer is to make each one visible: every form of thoroughness claimed here is backed by a receipt a second reader can check, or it does not count.