INDEPENDENT NEOCARIDINA REVIEW INVITATION
Round version: 1.0
Review packet version: 1.2
Assignment: round1-taxonomy-identity
Lens: Taxonomy and identity

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: Colour proves the species or purity of a line
Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/colour-identity
Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/species
Selection reason: Species names, visible phenotype, market labels and later taxonomic reassignment are easy to collapse into one identity claim, and that error can propagate through sourcing and breeding records.
Your review scope: Audit the published source taxon, specimens, characters, loci, reference material, accepted-name use and every transfer from a population result to a photographed or traded animal.
Consequential failure to check: The project silently modernizes a historical name, authenticates a photographed animal or line from colour, or treats one barcode, database or trade label as complete identity.
Complete assignment packet: https://moltandmoss.com/research/independent-review-round/packets/round1-taxonomy-identity.txt
Comparison: A published species name is evidence context, not permanent identity
Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/taxonomy-name-history

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.