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-synthesis-grazing Lens: Evidence synthesis and science communication Relevant qualification: Experience in systematic review, evidence appraisal, research integrity, scientific editing or bounded public communication. Lens focus: Check source roles, support-to-limit logic, omitted contrary evidence, accessibility and whether the public wording outruns the source. 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: Neocaridina clean the tank Supported: Neocaridina graze algae, microbes, detrital material and food-associated surfaces. Not established: grazing guarantees control of a visible growth, replaces maintenance or exports the consumed nutrients from the aquarium. Next action: identify the material and correct light, inputs or maintenance while treating shrimp as animals, not equipment. Claim page: https://moltandmoss.com/care/claims/cleanup-crew Guide: https://moltandmoss.com/care/algae Evidence dossier: https://moltandmoss.com/research/guides/algae ASSIGNMENT SCOPE Selection reason: Direct grazing, surface removal, litter processing and water-column nutrient results can all be true while supporting very different claims about cleaning and whole-system export. Reviewer scope: Audit the mapping from each source method to compartment and endpoint, the reconciliation of local removal with material recycling and the accessibility of the practical decision boundary. Consequential failure to check: The synthesis averages unlike outcomes, hides a contrary compartment, implies total waste export or markets an animal as maintenance equipment rather than describing bounded grazing behavior. EXACT EVIDENCE RECORDS Evidence id: groendahl-2017-algal-grazing Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Directly measured grazing-related outcomes under its stated comparison. Source availability: Canonical DOI outside query result Availability boundary: The record has a canonical DOI but did not appear in the broad Neocaridina query. It requires DOI-specific or alternative-registry status review before any no-update statement. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/records/groendahl-2017-algal-grazing Evidence id: ye-2019-macrophyte-periphyton Role: direct-support Use in this claim: Separates local periphyton and plant outcomes from water-column nutrient and chlorophyll 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/ye-2019-macrophyte-periphyton Evidence id: kong-2019-cattail-decomposition Role: limitation-context Use in this claim: Separates litter breakdown and fecal effects from proven intake or whole-tank cleaning. 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/kong-2019-cattail-decomposition SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES No authority is mapped to this exact claim. NAMED OPEN QUESTIONS Gap id: botanical-litter-outcomes Current boundary: One abstract-level N. davidi study reports leaf choices and normalized consumption. A fully reviewed N. denticulata microcosm study separates direct shrimp contact from fecal contact on one cattail preparation and measures litter breakdown, enzymes and water chemistry, but not intake, dietary adequacy or long-term shrimp outcomes. The taxa, litter species and endpoints differ, and neither record establishes disease benefit or a replacement interval. Record: https://moltandmoss.com/research/gaps/botanical-litter-outcomes ASSIGNED EVIDENCE COMPARISON Title: Grazing on algae is not the same as cleaning an aquarium Question: How can shrimp reduce attached algae while some system measurements rise? Why it looks conflicting: A reader may treat fewer algal cells, lower leaf-periphyton chlorophyll, faster litter breakdown and higher water-column nutrients as competing verdicts on whether shrimp make a system clean. Bounded reconciliation: The studies measured different compartments and processes. Consumption or disturbance can reduce algae on a surface while recycling material into feces, dissolved nutrients or suspended production. Local removal is not system export. Still unresolved: The corpus does not provide a home-aquarium cleaning rate, a stocking rule for algae control or a nutrient budget that transfers across tanks. Decision boundary: Describe shrimp as grazers and decomposer-community participants. Do not promise that they remove total waste, replace maintenance or solve an unidentified algae problem. Comparison page: https://moltandmoss.com/research/disagreements/grazing-and-system-nutrients 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.