proof-derivation-forensics

# Proof & Derivation Forensics — does the written proof hold? Audit family **G (proof & derivation integrity)** for: **$ARGUMENTS** (requires `claims.json` from `/evidence-ledger`). A fresh cross-model reviewer reads each theorem/proof and proposes span-anchored findings; this skill writes `proof-derivation-forensics.findings.json`. The deterministic adjudicator — not this skill — computes the verdict. > 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** It is > verdict-bearing input — it proposes the findings the deterministic adjudicator > turns into the report. Re-firing it on a wall-clock timer adds no signal: its > output changes only when the **paper / ledger** changes, not with the clock. > Schedule the *external wait that precedes it* — ledger built → audit **once**. > (Mirrors ARIS's external-cadence doctrine.) > Broken math is the single most-cited "obviously machine-written" tell in real > reviews ("过不去的步骤用文字糊弄", "车轱辘话复述当证明", "关键公式符号用反"). Unlike the > surface signals of family F, family-G flaws are **substantive** and **can be > critical**: a theorem whose proof is circular, skips a load-bearing obligation, or > takes an invalid step **does not support its claim**. And — crucially — proof > validity is decidable from the *written* proof: we never need the code or results, > so family G is **verdict-bearing at L1** (the LaTeX source) and can still reach > HARD_FLAGS with no repo — but needs that source, because PDF-extracted math is > unrelia...