INDEPENDENT NEOCARIDINA REVIEW INVITATION
Round version: 1.0
Review packet version: 1.2
Assignment: round1-taxonomy-lineage
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: Mixed colours always turn brown or clear in two generations
Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/mixed-colours
Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/colours
Selection reason: The project separates visible phenotype, environmental plasticity, pigmentation mechanisms and documented ancestry while rejecting deterministic seller-chart inheritance claims.
Your review scope: Audit whether the wording distinguishes phenotype, line name, pedigree, source population, genetic inference and complete F1 or F2 outcome records without overstating molecular studies.
Consequential failure to check: The project implies that named colour lines have authenticated genetic identity, predicts an undocumented cross or converts environmental colour change into evidence for or against inherited lineage.
Complete assignment packet: https://moltandmoss.com/research/independent-review-round/packets/round1-taxonomy-lineage.txt
Comparison: Visible colour can change without proving inherited identity
Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/colour-phenotype-and-identity

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.