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-husbandry-quarantine Lens: Aquatic husbandry and welfare Relevant qualification: Documented freshwater crustacean, aquatic veterinary, laboratory-animal or evidence-based aquarium husbandry experience. Lens focus: Check whether actions are measurable, reversible where possible, welfare-conscious and separated from diagnosis or treatment authorization. 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 fixed quarantine period proves shrimp are clean Supported: separating each new source contact network reduces opportunities to expose established animals and creates an observation window. Not established: one duration detects or clears every organism, proves pathogen-free status or validates routine prophylactic treatment. Next action: use a commissioned separate system, dedicated wet equipment, recorded observations and a release decision. Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/quarantine-clock Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/quarantine Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/quarantine ASSIGNMENT SCOPE Selection reason: Biosecurity advice can create false confidence or encourage unnecessary prophylactic treatment when separation, observation, organism detection and clearance are compressed into one clock. Reviewer scope: Audit whether the actions preserve separate contact networks, dedicated wet equipment, welfare-conscious observation, uncertainty about detection and a defined release decision without claiming pathogen-free status. Consequential failure to check: The project presents one duration as clearance, recommends routine unverified treatment, ignores equipment-mediated contact or implies that visual normality protects an established colony. EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS Evidence id: maciaszek-2023-epibionts Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Documents identified epibionts and observation limits without validating one clearance interval. 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/maciaszek-2023-epibionts Evidence id: niwa-2014-holtodrilus-microhabitat Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Documents host-associated worm observations while leaving transmission probability and quarantine duration unresolved. 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/niwa-2014-holtodrilus-microhabitat Evidence id: schneider-2022-microsporidians Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Documents molecularly examined microsporidian material without creating a universal visual screen or treatment. 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/schneider-2022-microsporidians SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES Authority id: fao-aquatic-quarantine Use in this claim: Supports risk-based aquatic quarantine principles without a universal Neocaridina duration. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/authorities/fao-aquatic-quarantine Authority id: woah-aquaculture-biosecurity Use in this claim: Supports movement and contact-network biosecurity principles. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/authorities/woah-aquaculture-biosecurity NAMED OPEN QUESTIONS Gap id: treatment-efficacy Current boundary: One three-aquarium conference abstract reported complete Deugesia removal and three-day survival of all 12 shrimp after mebendazole or albendazole additions, but it omitted aquarium volume, usable concentration, replicated vessels, explicit control results, sublethal endpoints and recurrence follow-up. No controlled efficacy-and-safety trial was located for common hobby salt, fenbendazole, praziquantel or peroxide doses against named Neocaridina health agents. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/gaps/treatment-efficacy 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.