Review protocol and evidence status
Page status: generated scoping-review snapshot and evidence-status record.
This page is generated from review/snapshot-manifest.json and the canonical evidence matrix. It publishes the review state without implying that a single-coded seed corpus is an independently validated systematic review.
Published snapshot
| field | value |
|---|---|
| protocol version | 0.1.0 |
| snapshot date | 2026-08-25 |
| matrix records | 37 |
| matrix SHA-256 | 3cbb795c0cd6063da9da5979056c04c294ebe6ae8bc7545f1b0a708dc39ee9f8 |
| deduplication rows | 37 |
| deduplication SHA-256 | 75143b8c286bbba4bd674c11fb205d594a1b7385783d634de0d11dcf79477b86 |
| independent human double-coding | no |
Screening and coding counts
| dimension | counts |
|---|---|
| screening status | include: 36; exclude: 1; uncertain: 0 |
| coding status | single_coded: 37 |
| exactness labels | exact: 14; not_reported: 4; outer: 1; scenario_approximate: 8; unclassified: 10 |
The current snapshot is therefore a single-coded seed snapshot, not a double-coded corpus. The 2026-08-15 second-coding log recommends eight rows for promotion after slot repairs and identifies six substantive coding conflicts; those recommendations remain pending and are not silently reflected in the canonical matrix.
Search coverage
The protocol names the following information sources:
- IEEE Xplore
- Scopus
- Web of Science
- Engineering Village/Compendex
- Inspec
- MathSciNet or zbMATH where available
- arXiv
- relevant standards and official software documentation
The dated search runs included in this snapshot are:
2026-08-14-seed-batch.md2026-08-15-formulation-landscape.md2026-08-15-information-model-citation-chase.md2026-08-16-multiphase-and-practical-reductions.md2026-08-25-coupled-multivoltage-corridors.md
The search-run files record query families, available platforms, and limitations for each run. The protocol also requires backward and forward citation chasing, duplicate resolution, and a saved-search rerun before a tagged release; these are not claimed complete merely because a row is in the matrix.
Evidence-status interpretation
A populated matrix row means that one source-to-target result was coded at a declared scope. It does not mean that the source is a proof of the book's architecture, that an exactness label applies to a feasible set, or that a software conversion preserves provenance and limits. The exactness_object, recovery_map, constraint_map, and provenance_map fields must be read together.
The second-coding and independent-technical-review documents are retained as review evidence, but they are not substitutes for an independent human double-coding pass. The canonical matrix remains the source of published counts; dated snapshots and reconciliation notes explain proposed changes without rewriting history.
Reproducibility inputs
The manifest records 9 hashed protocol, coding, bibliography, and search-run inputs. Run scripts/check_review_snapshot.py to verify the matrix, deduplication register, record identifiers, and input hashes against this published snapshot.
The protocol's promised PRISMA-style flow is represented here as a scoped count table rather than a clinical-review claim: the available evidence is a seed search with one explicit exclusion, and the screening/coding pipeline is still being expanded.