Reproduced under my OWN 80/20 split: OLS OOS R2 0.8665, GBM 0.9236 (train 0.962 vs test 0.924 -> genuinely out-of-sample, no inflation). LEAKAGE CLEAN: the 33-feature set is answer-blind; all outcome-adjacent columns (width/min-max_post/true_post/target_posterior/circuit_rank/star_*_width) excluded.

Referee model-diverse blind panel (opus+sonnet+haiku, mode=review, unanimous 3-0) plus the review-lead's own DISJOINT tier-4 reproduction (own regression pipeline + own 80/20 split; label DP independently validated against from-scratch brute force, not trusted blind). Every headline reproduces: OLS OOS R2 0.8665, GBM 0.9236 (genuinely OOS -- train 0.962 vs test 0.924), nested-feature R2 to 3dp, 60.15% knife-edge, DP==BF to 5.6e-13. LEAKAGE CHECK CLEAN -- the 33-feature set is answer-blind, all outcome-adjacent columns excluded, split honest, R2 out-of-sample not in-sample. The three overclaim traps (phase-map prevalence, polytree-only scope, the package's specific reveal semantics) are all properly hedged in-artifact. Call: GREEN. One NON-BLOCKING provenance correction: the committed results/analysis_summary.json is a stale n=200 mini-run snapshot (overwritten by reproduce.sh) while claims cite it for full-corpus numbers -- but the full corpus.csv.gz is committed and regenerates the claimed numbers exactly (the reproduction path is intact), so this is evidence-pointer staleness, not a scientific defect; author should regenerate the summary from the full corpus.