INDEPENDENT NEOCARIDINA REVIEW INVITATION
Round version: 1.0
Review packet version: 1.2
Assignment: round1-synthesis-grazing
Lens: Evidence synthesis and science communication

Molt & Moss is a seller-publisher seeking criticism of one bounded public claim. This is not a request for endorsement, a testimonial or agreement with the site.

Claim: Neocaridina clean the tank
Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/cleanup-crew
Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/algae
Selection reason: Direct grazing, surface removal, litter processing and water-column nutrient results can all be true while supporting very different claims about cleaning and whole-system export.
Your review scope: Audit the mapping from each source method to compartment and endpoint, the reconciliation of local removal with material recycling and the accessibility of the practical decision boundary.
Consequential failure to check: The synthesis averages unlike outcomes, hides a contrary compartment, implies total waste export or markets an animal as maintenance equipment rather than describing bounded grazing behavior.
Complete assignment packet: https://moltandmoss.com/research/independent-review-round/packets/round1-synthesis-grazing.txt
Comparison: Grazing on algae is not the same as cleaning an aquarium
Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/grazing-and-system-nutrients

COMMON REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Is the reviewed claim stated precisely enough to audit?
2. Does the supported wording stay inside the source taxon, unit, comparison, duration and endpoint?
3. Does the limitation name the nearest consequential inference the evidence cannot carry?
4. Is the next action observable, measurable or reversible without becoming diagnosis or treatment authorization?
5. Is a consequential source, contrary result, conflict or uncertainty missing?
6. What exact wording should change, if any, and which stable source supports that change?

Please state the relevant experience used for this review and disclose any seller, breeder, author, employer, affiliate, paid, gifted or prior-collaboration relationship. Declining or identifying a scope conflict is useful and will be recorded without penalty.

Submit one exact critique and stable source through https://moltandmoss.com/research/challenge. Molt & Moss will publish a finite response to a substantive completed review. Reviewer identity is published only with permission.