External review
step · paper openDeclaration 553ba6168ce8 has not been accepted by anyone. · no paper read under it
What structure did the three readers systematically miss?
Mechanical: re-runnable from its declared inputs.
Part of Induction — What did the readers find, and what survived reconciliation?
How it works
One Opus pass over the reconciled draft with the paper beside it, recovering what prose-level extraction systematically under-covers: the prediction and hypothesis roles, and multi- panel claims collapsed onto a single panel. Roughly two dollars and three minutes a paper, and it moved role agreement on the Headley round-trip from about 65% to about 96%.
It is not review in this file's sense — it is a second model, not a person, and it changes the artifact rather than approving a version of one. Running it is optional: claim-tree builds on this output where it exists and on the reconciled draft where it does not.
Rests on
- reconcile · step
Feeds — a change here disturbs these
- claim-tree · step
How it is defined
A model answers this layer, so the prompt is the layer. It is reproduced below from the committed file, and it is a declared input — editing it makes every run that used it stale.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
What it produces62 claims
One paper, as the worked example — Gadeke, v3. Read from runs/gadeke-2026-guilt-insula/external-review.output.json · 69 KB. paper_doi 10.7554/eLife.105391paper_title Contributions of insula and superior temporal sulcus to interpersonal guilt and responsibility in social decisionsextraction_path jatsextraction_path_note JATS-XML from https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105391/elife-105391-v1.xmlmodel supplied:runs/gadeke-2026-guilt-insula/external-review.answer.v3.json
| # | claim | panel | claim_type | role | addresses | confidence | sources | evidence_by_agent | span_by_agent | evidence_verified | evidence_verified_against | notes | part_of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Responsibility for a social choice that yields a low outcome for a partner produces interpersonal guilt, experienced by the decision-maker as a larger decrease in momentary happiness than when the par… | — | hypothesis | hypothesis | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"This study investigated the neural mechanisms involved in feelings of interpersonal guilt and responsibility… | {"results":"abstract-001"} | {} | {} | The paper's guiding proposition, framed via the research aim and the operational definition of guilt rather than an explicit 'we hypothesize' statement. Only the results reader could surface a hypothe… | — |
| 2 | The anterior insula is the neural substrate of the guilt effect, increasing its BOLD response when participants are responsible for low outcomes affecting their partner. | — | hypothesis | hypothesis | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Next, we sought to uncover the neural mechanisms associated with our guilt effect and those involved in trac… | {"results":"results-086"} | {} | {} | The insula-as-guilt-substrate proposition the paper pursues given prior literature; stated as an aim and later as a result rather than as an explicit hypothesis. | — |
| 3 | Functional connectivity between guilt- and responsibility-related outcome-phase regions and prefrontal cortex changes depending on whether participants decide for themselves alone or also for their pa… | — | hypothesis | hypothesis | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"We hypothesized that connectivity with regions that showed guilt- and responsibility-related responses durin… | {"results":"results-140"} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 4 | A neural substrate tracks the participant's responsibility for the partner's outcomes: within regions sensitive to choice outcomes, the partner's reward prediction errors are represented more strongly… | — | hypothesis | hypothesis | — | single-source | ["reviewer"] | {"reviewer":"Inferred from the paper's second stated aim ('Next, we sought to uncover the neural mechanisms associated w… | {} | {} | {} | [reviewer] added: the paper's second organizing proposition, parallel to the insula/guilt hypothesis and named alongside it in the title and abstract - a neural substrate tracking the participant's re… | — |
| 5 | If responsibility for outcomes generates guilt, then participant happiness should decrease more after low lottery outcomes for the partner when the participant rather than the partner chose the lotter… | — | prediction | prediction | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"In our definition, guilt occurs due to responsibility for low lottery outcomes for the partner."} | {"results":"results-119"} | {} | {} | The conditional deduced from the guilt hypothesis; the paper states it as an operational definition and then tests it. Kept distinct from the result that tests it (the guilt-effect interaction). | — |
| 6 | If the anterior insula tracks guilt, then insula BOLD should be higher in the Social than the Partner condition and show a significant Social-by-low-outcome interaction. | — | prediction | prediction | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"To identify regions likely to be involved in the guilt effect, we selected those satisfying two conditions: … | {"results":"results-124"} | {} | {} | Phrased as the prediction the insula hypothesis commits the paper to; the text states it as the region-selection criteria. | — |
| 7 | If responsibility for the partner's outcomes influences the participant's momentary happiness, then a computational model that includes the partner's reward prediction errors arising from the particip… | — | prediction | prediction | — | single-source | ["reviewer"] | {"reviewer":"Deduced from the guilt/responsibility hypothesis and the stated modelling aim ('we aimed to assess whether … | {} | {} | {} | [reviewer] added: the computational-route prediction the behavioural guilt/responsibility hypothesis commits the paper to, tested by the model comparison (Responsibility / Responsibility Redux best fi… | — |
| 8 | If a neural substrate tracks the participant's responsibility for the partner's outcomes, then within regions sensitive to the outcomes of risky choices, BOLD should respond more strongly to the partn… | — | prediction | prediction | — | single-source | ["reviewer"] | {"reviewer":"Deduced from the responsibility-tracking hypothesis; the paper states the corresponding search directly ('w… | {} | {} | {} | [reviewer] added: the conditional the responsibility-tracking hypothesis commits the paper to, tested by the left-STS model-based result; kept distinct from that empirical result. | — |
| 9 | If connectivity between the guilt- and responsibility-related outcome-phase regions (left insula, left STS) and prefrontal cortex depends on whether participants decide for themselves alone or also fo… | — | prediction | prediction | — | single-source | ["reviewer"] | {"reviewer":"Deduced from the connectivity hypothesis ('We hypothesized that connectivity with regions that showed guilt… | {} | {} | {} | [reviewer] added: the observable the connectivity hypothesis commits the paper to; tested by the insula-IFG and STS-IFG PPI results. | — |
| 10 | Participants' probability of choosing the risky option (lottery) increased with the difference between the expected value of the lottery and the value of the safe option (Study 1: t(4796) = 9.26, p < … | fig2a,fig2d | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"As expected, participants’ probability of choosing the risky option (lottery) increased with the difference … | {"results":"results-005"} | {} | {} | Manipulation check that choices tracked expected value as intended. | — |
| 11 | Participants chose the risky option (lottery) more often in the Solo than the Social condition in Study 1 (t(4796) = 2.54, p = 0.011, β = 0.164) but not in Study 2 (t(3829) = 0.23, p = 0.82, β = 0.015… | fig2a,fig2d | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Participants chose the lottery more often in the Solo condition than in the Social condition in Study 1 (t(4… | {} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 12 | In mixed-effects regressions on choices, the Social condition significantly increased choice of the risky option in Study 1 but not in Study 2. | app1table1 | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"Condition Social 0.14* 0.03^ 0.01 0.01"} | {} | {} | {} | Row values are Study 1 probit (0.14*), Study 1 linear (0.03^), Study 2 probit (0.01), Study 2 linear (0.01). This is the regression-table counterpart to the fig2a/fig2d proportion effect, which the re… | — |
| 13 | There was no significant interaction between the difference in expected values and experimental conditions in either study (p > 0.52). | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"There was no significant interaction between the difference in expected values and experimental conditions i… | {"results":"results-007"} | {} | {} | Null result. | — |
| 14 | Risk premiums did not differ between Solo and Social conditions in either study (Study 1: t(39) = 1.53, p = 0.134, d = 0.24, BF10 = 0.49; Study 2: t(43) = –0.21, p = 0.84, d = –0.03, BF10 = 0.17). | fig2b,fig2e | empirical | control | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Risk premiums did not differ between Social and Solo conditions (Study 1: Figure 2B, t(39) = 1.53, p = 0.134… | {} | {} | {} | Null result; evidence against social-context-driven changes in risk aversion. | — |
| 15 | The risk-aversion parameter ρ did not differ between gain and loss trials (Study 1: t(17) = 0.21, p = 0.84, d = 0.05; Study 2: t(15) = –0.61, p = 0.55, d = 0.15), justifying pooling across gain and lo… | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"As ρ did not vary between gain and loss trials (Study 1: t(17) = 0.21, p = 0.84, d = 0.05; Study 2: t(15) = … | {} | {} | {} | Null result justifying pooling across gain and loss trials. | — |
| 16 | Participants were slightly more risk averse (higher ρ) in the Social than the Solo condition in Study 1 (t(39) = 2.27, p = 0.03, d = 0.36, BF10 = 1.69) but not in Study 2 (t(43) = 1.40, p = 0.17, d = … | fig2c,fig2f | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"We found that participants were slightly more risk averse in the Social than in the Solo condition in Study … | {} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 17 | Participants showed very similar risk preferences whether deciding only for themselves (Solo) or for themselves and their partner (Social), with only a tendency toward higher risk aversion in the Soci… | — | synthesis | synthesis | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"In sum, participants showed very similar risk preferences when making decisions affecting only themselves (S… | {} | {} | {} | Integrates the choice, risk-premium and ρ results across both studies; synthesis is expected to be single-source (results reader only). | — |
| 18 | Participant momentary happiness varied with the rewards the participant received in the current trial. | fig3a,fig3e | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Across all trials, in both studies, participant momentary happiness correlated with rewards obtained in the … | {"results":"results-029"} | {} | {} | The results reader stated the participant- and partner-reward correlations jointly; the caption reader anchored the participant-reward correlation to fig3a/fig3e specifically, so it is split from the … | — |
| 19 | Participant momentary happiness varied with the rewards the partner received in the current trial. | fig3b,fig3f | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Across all trials, in both studies, participant momentary happiness correlated with rewards obtained in the … | {"results":"results-029"} | {} | {} | The results reader stated the participant- and partner-reward correlations jointly; the caption reader anchored the partner-reward correlation to fig3b/fig3f specifically, so it is split from the part… | — |
| 20 | Rutledge and colleagues established that changes in momentary happiness during a probabilistic reward task are explained by recent reward expectations and the prediction errors arising from them. | — | interpretive | literature-context | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Following Rutledge and colleagues’ methodology, which considers that changes in momentary happiness in respo… | {"results":"results-046"} | {} | {} | Prior-work premise the happiness-modelling approach inherits. | — |
| 21 | A likelihood ratio test showed the Responsibility model fitted the happiness data better than all other models, including the Responsibility Redux model (Study 1: all LR ≥ 47.36, p < 0.0001; Study 2: … | table1 | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"a likelihood ratio test (Equation 9) revealed that the Responsibility model fitted better than all the other… | {} | {} | {} | Kept separate from the R² comparison to preserve the results reader's distinct verbatim quote for each statistic. | — |
| 22 | The Responsibility model yielded higher R² values than all other models (Study 1: all t > 3.6, p < 0.007; Study 2: all t > 2.9, p < 0.034), except the Guilt-envy model in Study 1 (t = 2.19, p = 0.17). | table1 | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"The Responsibility model yielded higher R2 values than all the other models (Study 1: all t > 3.6, p < 0.007… | {} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 23 | Among the computational models fitted to momentary happiness data, the Responsibility Redux model achieved the best (lowest) AIC in both studies (Study 1 AIC –1499; Study 2 AIC –1195). | table1 | assessment | methodological | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"Responsibility Redux 4 0.361 0.331 –999 –1499"} | {} | {} | {} | Best-fitting model inferred from the lowest AIC values (Study 2 Responsibility Redux AIC –1195). Note the apparent tension: the results reader instead reported the (non-Redux) Responsibility model as … | — |
| 24 | The Responsibility Redux model — incorporating expected, previous and current rewards, reward prediction errors for both participant and partner, and decision-maker — predicted the variations in parti… | fig3c,fig3g | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"A computational model taking into account expected, previous and current rewards, reward prediction errors f… | {} | {} | {} | The model-based regressors used in the fMRI analyses depend on this fit. | — |
| 25 | Momentary happiness was modelled with five computational models (Basic, Inequality, Guilt-envy, Responsibility, and Responsibility Redux) sharing separate, exponentially decaying terms for certain rew… | — | assessment | methodological | — | single-source | ["structure"] | {"structure":"All models contained separate terms for certain rewards, expected value for lotteries and reward predictio… | {} | {} | {} | The Basic, Inequality and Guilt-envy models are identical to those in Rutledge et al., 2016. | — |
| 26 | Model selection among the happiness models used likelihood-ratio tests comparing the Responsibility model pairwise against each other model, supplementing the AIC, BIC, R² and adjusted R² values. | — | assessment | methodological | — | single-source | ["structure"] | {"structure":"we supplemented the AIC, BIC, R 2 and adjusted R 2 values reported in Table 1 with a series of likelihood … | {} | {} | {} | The model-comparison method that licenses treating the best-fitting model's variables as the regressors entered into the model-based fMRI GLM (GLM2). Kept distinct from the results reader's report of … | — |
| 27 | Participants' own reward prediction errors (sRPE) influenced happiness more than the partner's reward prediction errors (social_pRPE and partner_pRPE) (Study 1: all Z > 6.0, p < 0.001; Study 2: all Z … | — | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"weights for sRPE were higher than for social_pRPE or partner_pRPE (Study 1: all Z > 6.0, p < 0.001; Study 2:… | {"results":"results-067"} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 28 | The partner's reward prediction errors resulting from the participants' own choices (social_pRPE) had weights greater than 0 (Responsibility model: Study 1: Z = 2.85, p = 0.004; Study 2: Z = 3.26, p =… | — | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"weights for social_pRPE were greater than 0: Responsibility model: Study 1: Z = 2.85, p = 0.004, Study 2: Z … | {} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 29 | A parameter-recovery procedure on synthetic data generated from each participant's estimated parameters showed the happiness-model parameters could be reliably recovered, verifying their stability. | fig3s1 | assessment | methodological | — | contested | ["results","caption","structure"] | {"results":"The stability of these estimated parameters was verified using a parameter recovery procedure (see Methods a… | {"results":"results-068"} | {} | {} | All three readers surfaced this and agree on the substance and panel (fig3s1), but disagree on role/type: the results and caption readers classified it as a methodological assessment (a capability war… | — |
| 30 | Participant happiness was lower when the participant was the decision-maker (Social + Solo vs. Partner), independent of outcome (Study 1: t(3600) = –3.92, p < 0.0001, β = –0.14; Study 2: t(2870) = –6.… | — | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"we assessed whether happiness varied depending on the participant’s agency (Social + Solo vs. Partner), and … | {} | {} | {} | The agency effect on happiness, distinct from the guilt (partner-outcome-contingent) effect. | — |
| 31 | The lower happiness when the participant is the decision-maker may reflect responsibility aversion — a cost of the 'weight of the responsibility'. | — | interpretive | interpretation | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"This is interesting in itself and may reflect the drive behind responsibility aversion reported by Edelson e… | {"results":"results-073"} | {} | {} | Interpretation of the agency effect through the responsibility-aversion literature. | — |
| 32 | When the partner received the low lottery outcome, participant happiness was lower when the participant rather than the partner had chosen the lottery — a significant partner-outcome × decision-maker … | fig3d,fig3h | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Crucially, the interaction between partner outcome and decision-maker was significant (Study 1: t(1180) = 3.… | {} | {} | {} | The core behavioural 'guilt effect'; this is the empirical result that tests the guilt prediction. | — |
| 33 | The linear mixed model containing all three two-way interaction terms (Model 5, Equation 10) explained the happiness data significantly better than simpler models without interactions (p < 2e−5) and n… | app1table2 | assessment | methodological | — | contested | ["caption","structure"] | {"caption":"In both studies, Model 5 ( Equation 9 in the Results section of the main text), which contained all three t… | {} | {} | {} | Contested role/type: the caption reader classified this as an empirical result (Model 5 best-fitting, with its partnerHigh:participantDecided guilt coefficient significant — 0.39*** Study 1, 0.31** St… | — |
| 34 | The behavioural guilt effect (larger happiness decrease after low partner outcomes following participant rather than partner choices) is compatible with 'simple guilt'. | — | interpretive | interpretation | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"This behavioural effect (difference in happiness obtained when the partner received low lottery outcomes aft… | {"results":"results-080"} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 35 | The guilt effect occurred whether the participant received the high lottery outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.56; Study 2: t(43) = –2.68, p = 0.01, d = 0.4) or the low outcome (Study 1… | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"The ‘guilt effect’ occurred whether the participant received the high lottery outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.5… | {} | {} | {} | Shows the guilt effect does not depend on the participant's own outcome, strengthening (validating) the guilt interpretation. | — |
| 36 | Responsibility for choices did not influence happiness following positive (high) lottery outcomes for the partner (both studies, all |t| < 1.3, p > 0.2, BF10 < 0.2). | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Responsibility for choices did not influence happiness following positive lottery outcomes for the partner (… | {"results":"results-083"} | {} | {} | Null result establishing that the guilt effect is specific to negative partner outcomes. | — |
| 37 | In both studies, participants felt worse after low lottery outcomes for the partner when those outcomes followed their own choice rather than the partner's, which the authors interpret as interpersona… | — | synthesis | synthesis | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Within these outcomes, participants felt worse following low lottery outcomes for the partner if those outco… | {"results":"results-085"} | {} | {} | Integrates the guilt-effect results across both studies; synthesis is expected to be single-source (results reader only). | — |
| 38 | The findings rest on two samples of healthy adults — Study 1 (behaviour only, N = 40) and Study 2 (fMRI, N = 44); all BOLD/fMRI results derive from Study 2, while the behavioural results come from bot… | — | assessment | scope | — | high | ["results","structure"] | {"results":"We analysed the BOLD responses of brain regions engaged during decision-making and at the time of receiving … | {"results":"results-087"} | {} | {} | Global scope condition bounding the empirical claims; distinguishes the behavioural study from the fMRI study. The results reader emphasised that BOLD results come only from Study 2; the structure rea… | — |
| 39 | On each trial participants chose between a safe and a risky monetary option under three conditions: choosing for oneself (Solo), for oneself and the partner (Social), and having the partner choose for… | — | assessment | scope | — | single-source | ["structure"] | {"structure":"There were three kinds of trials: decisions by the participant only for themselves ( Solo condition), deci… | {} | {} | {} | The within-subject responsibility manipulation on which the guilt and agency contrasts depend. | — |
| 40 | To hold the partner's behaviour constant across participants, the partner's decisions were simulated by an algorithm that always selected the option with the highest expected value. | — | assessment | methodological | — | single-source | ["structure"] | {"structure":"In order to ascertain constant decisions by the partner, the partner’s decisions were simulated using a si… | {} | {} | {} | The partner was not a free agent; partner choices in the Partner condition were deterministic, which the responsibility/guilt contrasts rely on. | — |
| 41 | Study 2 reproduced the Study 1 design inside the fMRI scanner with identical parameters except for longer inter-stimulus intervals (3–11 s) and partners who were experimenters positioned outside the s… | — | assessment | scope | — | single-source | ["structure"] | {"structure":"In Study 2, participants performed two sessions of the experiment described above inside the fMRI scanner.… | {} | {} | {} | In Study 2 the partner was experimenter MG or TW rather than another participant, so any replication of the Study 1 guilt effect holds under this changed social pairing. | — |
| 42 | The bilateral ventral striatum was more active when participants chose the risky rather than the safe option (Cohen's d = 0.72 left, 0.85 right), irrespective of Social or Solo condition, replicating … | fig4a | empirical | control | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"We searched for brain regions engaged more when participants chose the risky instead of the safe option and … | {"results":"results-088"} | {} | {} | The results reader treated this as a control replicating a known risk-related effect and validating the imaging analysis; the caption reader described it as a plain empirical result. Both are empirica… | — |
| 43 | Decisions in the Social compared with the Solo condition engaged three clusters — the precuneus (d = 0.79), left temporo-parietal junction (d = 0.59), and medial prefrontal cortex (d = 0.54). | fig4b | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Three significant clusters of voxels were identified (Figure 4B and Appendix 1—table 3), in the precuneus (d… | {} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 44 | Only the precuneus and TPJ showed positive Risky–Safe differences in both the Social>Solo and Social>Partner comparisons, being most active when participants chose the lottery in the Social condition. | fig4c | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Only the precuneus and TPJ showed positive differences in both comparisons (Figure 4C), indicating that thes… | {} | {} | {} | Caption states all coefficients and differences are significantly different from 0 (see Appendix 1—table 4). | — |
| 45 | During receipt of lottery versus safe outcomes (across all conditions), clusters were more active in the bilateral anterior insula, dmPFC, right STS, bilateral ventral striatum, right dorsolateral pre… | fig4d | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"A cluster of voxels more active during receipt of lottery outcomes than outcomes of safe choices was identif… | {"results":"results-117"} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 46 | The insula ROIs responded more to low lottery outcomes for the partner in the Social than the Partner condition — even after subtracting responses to high outcomes — mirroring the behavioural guilt ef… | fig4e | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"Thus, activation in our insula ROIs increased in situations during which participants experienced guilt for … | {"results":"results-127"} | {} | {} | Caption states all coefficients and differences are significantly different from 0 (see Appendix 1—table 6). | — |
| 47 | During the outcome phase, responses to low lottery outcomes were higher in the Social than the Partner condition in both left and right insula (InsulaL 0.41***, InsulaR 0.18***) and lower in the right… | app1table9 | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"Social 0.41*** 0.18*** –0.12**"} | {} | {} | {} | Columns are InsulaL (0.41***), InsulaR (0.18***) and MidTempR (–0.12**). Table-level breakdown supplementing the fig4e insula ROI result; kept separate by panel and by the added middle-temporal region… | — |
| 48 | The difference in response between low and high lottery outcomes was greater in the Social than the Partner condition in left insula (0.44***), right insula (0.19***), and right middle temporal cortex… | app1table10 | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"Social 0.44*** 0.19*** 0.67***"} | {} | {} | {} | Columns are InsulaL (0.44***), InsulaR (0.19***) and MidTempR (0.67***). Table-level breakdown supplementing the fig4e insula ROI result; kept separate by panel. | — |
| 49 | A mass-univariate voxel-wise analysis found a small left anterior insula cluster (peak T = 3.95, d = 0.59, 22 voxels) responding more to low partner outcomes following participant than partner choices… | fig4f | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"We found a weak response in a small cluster within the left anterior insula (peak T = 3.95, d = 0.59, 22 vox… | {"results":"results-129"} | {} | {} | The caption reader treated this as a control — convergent voxel-wise confirmation of the ROI-based insula guilt effect in panel E; the results reader treated it as the empirical voxel-wise guilt resul… | — |
| 50 | Prior literature documents an association between the anterior insula and guilt. | — | interpretive | literature-context | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Given the documented association between anterior insula and guilt (see Introduction), we proceeded to test … | {"results":"results-130"} | {} | {} | Inherited premise motivating the insula small-volume correction. | — |
| 51 | A model-based GLM (GLM2) entered the best-fitting computational (Responsibility) model's variables — certain rewards (CR), expected value (EV), participant RPE (sRPE), and partner RPE from participant… | — | assessment | methodological | — | high | ["results","structure"] | {"results":"We used the model to create expected BOLD responses for each participant (see Methods) and as a manipulation… | {"results":"results-133"} | {} | {} | The neural claims about tracking social_pRPE versus partner_pRPE depend on this model-based GLM being interpretable, which in turn depends on the model comparison. | — |
| 52 | As a manipulation check, bilateral ventral striatum activation increased with expected certain rewards and the expected values of chosen lotteries, explained by a model-based regressor coding particip… | fig4g | empirical | control | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"We found that activation in bilateral ventral striatum indeed increased with the amount of expected certain … | {"results":"results-134"} | {} | {} | The results reader treated this as a manipulation check validating the model-based BOLD analysis; the caption reader described it as a plain empirical result. Both agree on panel and direction; resolv… | — |
| 53 | One cluster in the left STS responded more to partner reward prediction errors resulting from participant rather than partner choices (pFWE = 0.022, T = 4.70, d = 0.53, 100 voxels, peak MNI [−52 –32 0… | fig4h | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"We found this effect in one cluster within the left STS (pFWE = 0.022, T = 4.70, d = 0.53, Z = 4.57, 100 vox… | {} | {} | {} | Caption notes this is restricted to brain regions sensitive to outcomes of risky choices. | — |
| 54 | The authors suggest this left STS region tracks a partner's unexpected outcomes less when they do not follow from the participant's decisions. | — | interpretive | interpretation | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"This finding suggests that this region of the left STS tracks a partner’s unexpected outcomes less when they… | {"results":"results-138"} | {} | {} | — | — |
| 55 | The left superior temporal sulcus cluster responded to model-based regressors coding participant reward prediction resulting from participant and partner choices across both sessions of the experiment… | fig4i | empirical | empirical | — | single-source | ["caption"] | {"caption":"( I ) Response in this cluster to the computational-model-based regressors coding participant reward predict… | {} | {} | {} | Caption describes what is plotted (coefficients with 95% confidence intervals) rather than stating a directional result; the caption reader marked it tentative. | — |
| 56 | Prior functional connectivity work has shown network differences between social and self-only choices, midbrain–anterior cingulate interactions during guilt compensation, and links between insula conn… | — | interpretive | literature-context | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Functional connectivity analyses have revealed differences in networks engaged by social and self-only choic… | {} | {} | {} | Prior-work premises motivating the connectivity analysis. | — |
| 57 | Functional connectivity between the left anterior insula (seed) and a cluster in the right inferior frontal gyrus varied with condition and choice, being highest when participants made Risky choices f… | fig5 | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"The first analysis revealed a cluster in the right IFG whose connectivity to the insula (the seed region) wa… | {"results":"results-142"} | {} | {} | The caption reader (tentative) stated the analysis but not the direction; the results reader supplied the direction and statistics. | — |
| 58 | A left IFG cluster showed the opposite pattern of connectivity with the left STS seed — highest for Safe-self / Risky-both-players choices — but did not survive correction for multiple comparisons (p … | fig5s1 | empirical | empirical | — | high | ["results","caption"] | {"results":"The second analysis revealed a smaller cluster in the left IFG that did not survive corrections for multiple… | {"results":"results-144"} | {} | {} | Reported at an uncorrected threshold; did not survive multiple-comparison correction. The caption reader classified it as a control while the results reader classified it as empirical; both agree on p… | — |
| 59 | Connectivity between the left anterior insula and the right inferior frontal gyrus varied with choice and condition, suggesting this prefrontal region is sensitive to guilt-related information during … | — | interpretive | interpretation | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"Connectivity between this region and the right inferior frontal gyrus varied depending on choice and experim… | {"results":"abstract-009"} | {} | {} | Interpretation stated in the abstract. | — |
| 60 | Dot products between individual neural guilt responses and the Yu et al. (2020) guilt-related brain signature (GRBS) were overall positive (mean = 5.22, median = 6.97, sign test p = 0.017, Cliff's Del… | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"The dot products between individual responses and the GRBS varied between –40.1 and 36.7, but overall these … | {"results":"results-152"} | {} | {} | [reviewer] role: empirical → control. The comparison against an independent, previously published neural guilt signature (Yu et al., 2020) is a convergent-validity check: its specific outcome - positi… | — |
| 61 | Individual GRBS dot-product values did not correlate with the behavioural guilt responses (Spearman's Rho = –0.058, p = 0.725), indicating the neural signature does not track individual differences in… | — | empirical | control | — | single-source | ["results"] | {"results":"We assessed whether inter-individual differences in these dot product values correlated with the behavioural… | {"results":"results-153"} | {} | {} | Null result: the neural signature does not track individual differences in behavioural guilt sensitivity. | — |
| 62 | A pre-task icebreaker succeeded in establishing a positive attitude toward the partner: participants rated their partners highly (all above 8 on a 1–10 scale) on sympathy, cooperativity, honesty, open… | app1table11 | empirical | control | — | high | ["caption","structure"] | {"caption":"How honest did they seem? 9.05 (1.11) 9.34 (1.10)","structure":"participants’ average ratings of their partn… | {} | {} | {} | Manipulation check that the social relationship was positive and non-competitive; the caption reader anchored it to Appendix 1—table 11 (ratings across the five items range roughly 8.35–9.34 across St… | — |
Across the corpus
9 not run · 1 stale·a paper links to its own cell, where this layer's output for it is rendered
| Paper | State | Version | Last run | Output | Cell |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A three-dimensional immunofluorescence atlas of the … | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Distinct representational properties of cues and con… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Computational modelling identifies key determinants … | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Contributions of insula and superior temporal sulcus…external-review under the current chain (#96) | stale | v3 | 2026-09-12 | external-review.output.json | json |
| Spatially targeted inhibitory rhythms differentially… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Feedback of peripheral saccade targets to early fove… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| iGABASnFR2 is an improved genetically encoded protei… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| A deep learning pipeline for mapping in situ network… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Self-association enhances early attentional selectio… | not run | — | — | — | json |
| Impaired excitability of fast-spiking neurons in a n… | not run | — | — | — | json |
Inputs and outputs
- Reads, besides its dependencies
-
- extract/prompts/external-reviewer.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- extract/prompts/contract/vocabulary.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- extract/prompts/contract/schema-draft.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- extract/prompts/contract/schema-review-patch.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- Produces
-
- runs/{paper}/external-review.output.json
- runs/{paper}/external-review.patch.json
One per paper — the table above links each one that exists.
- Views
-
- table — rendered above, over the 62 claims in the artifact
- comparison — on the cell page, two versions aligned by the matcher, wherever the ledger holds more than one
Running it
The command comes from the declaration, so this text and what actually runs cannot
diverge. pipeline.py run also runs the unmet dependencies first.
python3 scripts/pipeline.py run <paper> external-review
Underneath, that runs cd extract && python3 -m claim_graphs.cli external-review --paper {paper}.