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-tankmates 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: Peaceful fish are shrimp-safe Supported: outcomes depend on the exact fish species, individual size, shrimp life stage, cover, feeding, intake protection and the tank's goal. Not established: a retailer temperament label predicts juvenile retention or preserves a breeding line. Next action: decide whether the goal is adult display or colony recruitment, then evaluate the exact species. Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/peaceful-fish Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/tankmates Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/tankmates ASSIGNMENT SCOPE Selection reason: Adult coexistence is often sold as compatibility even though juvenile recruitment, injury, chronic behavior and welfare require different observations and safeguards. Reviewer scope: Audit whether the guidance distinguishes adult display from recruitment, names fish identity and size, preserves habitat and life-stage context and avoids recruiting uncontrolled risky introductions. Consequential failure to check: The project supplies a universal safe-fish list, treats surviving adults as juvenile outcome evidence or recommends a tankmate trial without complete counts and humane stopping authority. EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS Evidence id: carvalho-batista-2023-shelter Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Shelter and context affect shrimp responses but the study does not validate a fish-safe list. 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/carvalho-batista-2023-shelter Evidence id: rickward-2024-behaviour Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Behavior varies with context and cannot substitute for multigeneration recruitment outcomes. 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/rickward-2024-behaviour Evidence id: wilson-2026-quantitative-behaviour Role: interpretive-context Use in this claim: Quantified behavior does not establish juvenile survival with named fish. 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/wilson-2026-quantitative-behaviour SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES No authority is mapped to this exact claim. NAMED OPEN QUESTIONS Gap id: tankmate-recruitment Current boundary: Predator-cue behaviour and shelter studies did not place fish with shrimp and follow colony outcomes. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/gaps/tankmate-recruitment 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.