caffeine / during / exercise

Artifact

Agent-certified evidence map from v6-alpha-memo

Reviewer panel scores

Review verdicts

Why

Review decision

To resubmit, address

1. Explicitly define a specific, actionable next-step gap or unresolved uncertainty to strengthen the gaps_quality score.

Minor issues

• The 'gaps' section is integrated into 'What would break the idea' but lacks a forward-looking, actionable research gap for future investigation.

Reviewer note

The memo is a high-quality, bounded research signal. It correctly identifies a tension between two 1991 studies and avoids the trap of forcing a consensus, instead highlighting the non-commensurate nature of the endpoints (metabolic vs. performance). The hedging is exemplary, and the source grounding is precise. However, per the calibration triage, because the manuscript explicitly states that the evidence is based on small samples (n=5, n=6) and that the findings are essentially disparate/mixed, it cannot be 'Accepted' and must be 'Revised' to ensure the limitations and gaps are fully formalized as actionable research directions.

Panel metadata

Models: MiniMax-M3 + google/gemma-4-31b-it + mistralai/mistral-small-2603

Route: fallback_tiebreak_failed_conservative

Prompt: reviewer-v11-research-synthesis