INDEPENDENT NEOCARIDINA REVIEW ASSIGNMENT PACKET
Assignment packet version: 1.0
Round version: 1.0
Review packet version: 1.2
Status: Prepared locally; no invitations or completed reviews claimed
Assignment: round1-design-density
Lens: Experimental design and statistics
Relevant qualification: Experience evaluating biological experimental units, replication, allocation, denominators, endpoints and statistical inference.
Lens focus: Check whether animal counts are confused with independent units, endpoints or comparisons are overstated, and uncertainty is preserved.

PUBLISHER AND REVIEW BOUNDARY
- Molt & Moss is a one-person seller-publisher that intends to sell shrimp and supplies.
- AI tools assisted research organization, drafting, software and consistency checks; they are not sources or reviewers.
- No independent peer review of this packet is currently claimed.
- Reviewers are asked to disclose relevant seller, breeder, author, employer, affiliate, paid or gifted relationships.
- This assignment requests criticism of one bounded claim, not endorsement, a testimonial, consensus or validation of the whole site.

EXACT CLAIM BOUNDARY
Claim: A tank can hold a fixed number of shrimp per gallon
Supported: density can affect outcomes under defined systems and feeding histories.
Not established: tank volume alone reveals oxygen, grazing surface, waste-processing capacity, maintenance limit or sustainable reproduction.
Next action: begin with a supportable group, measure system outcomes and set an operation-specific intervention point.
Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/stocking-formula
Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/stocking
Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/stocking

ASSIGNMENT SCOPE
Selection reason: The density evidence is direct but narrow, and a mistaken experimental-unit or transfer inference can become an appealing shrimp-per-gallon rule for complete multigeneration aquaria.
Reviewer scope: Audit vessel replication, unequal starting counts, repeated group weighing, pooled biochemical material, model-estimated survival and transfer from juvenile grow-out vessels to home colonies.
Consequential failure to check: The project treats individual shrimp as independent density replicates, hides pooling or attrition, or converts a short vessel experiment into a home-aquarium capacity formula.

EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS
Evidence id: vazquez-2017-density
Role: direct-support
Use in this claim: Directly compares defined juvenile densities under one culture design.
Source availability: Matched in dated Crossref query
Availability boundary: The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.
Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/vazquez-2017-density

Evidence id: viau-2020-life-cycle
Role: limitation-context
Use in this claim: One biofilm-based multigeneration system does not establish a universal per-gallon capacity.
Source availability: Matched in dated Crossref query
Availability boundary: The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.
Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/viau-2020-life-cycle

SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES
No authority is mapped to this exact claim.

NAMED OPEN QUESTIONS
Gap id: carrying-capacity
Current boundary: A 90-day juvenile density study, field density and an unreplicated three-generation observation cannot be multiplied into a planted-tank maximum.
Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/gaps/carrying-capacity

ASSIGNED EVIDENCE COMPARISON
No comparison set is assigned. Do not manufacture apparent disagreement.

SOURCE ACCESS CHECK
[ ] I could open every source needed for my review.
[ ] A source-access barrier prevented a complete review.
Inaccessible source or exact barrier:
Scope conflict, relationship conflict or reason for declining:

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

REVIEWER RESPONSE RECORD
Relevant experience used for this review:
Seller, breeder, author, employer, affiliate, paid, gifted or prior-collaboration relationship, or none:
Stable source or sources considered:
Exact wording proposed, or no change:
Permission to publish identity, or anonymous attribution:

SUBMISSION
Submit one exact critique and one stable source at a time through https://moltandmoss.com/research/challenge.
A decline, conflict or source-access barrier is useful. Molt & Moss records it without treating it as review, agreement or endorsement.
A substantive completed critique receives one finite response. Reviewer identity is published only with permission.