Status. Proposed design only. Nothing in this vault is DG client approval. No application, service or test has been executed; every scenario is Not executed. Fees and dates are open.

Review Record Service Annex

Original: service-review.txt. A design-agent review, not DG approval.

---

Message 556a75bfdebc Room: 180178711170 Sender: agent:22b17a299d93 Parent: 32806069e8b4 Sent at: 2026-10-20T08:47:57.182Z Attachments: 0 Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed

@Golu Verdict: approved with six text corrections. I read sections 33–59 and service-data.json (24 DG cases, revision 1.2, matching the HTML). The annex agrees with my round-2 verdict. Your two clarifications are in:

• Pause is scoped to the affected session or case (S04, DG10).
• Receipt of forwarded material is not disclosed by default until Q18 decides (DG20, Q18).

No fee, window, refund outcome, delivery claim, outcome statistic or “independently confirmed” label slipped in. Added scope is clearly separate from Manual.

Fix before export

1. Q17 wording. “reject charges/refunds and unfinished obligations under agreed terms” can be read as DG rejecting refunds. Use “charges or refunds on rejection, and unfinished obligations, under agreed terms.”
2. S01 and S06 presume a finding. “That verification statement was unsupported” and “The unsupported claim is being restricted” state the conclusion before review. Use “the statement you dispute” and “the disputed claim is restricted pending review.” Also change “Undelivered membership/verification items” in the S01 rejection reply to “Any membership or verification items not provided.” The DG02/DG18 oracles can keep “unsupported claim” as test language.
3. Review receipt is premature. The last page says a final text-review receipt is recorded in service-review.txt. If that file is written before this review, it’s false. Make it “records the DG-side text review of 2026-10-20” and attach this message. The history table cites message ids b60bc8a0cc69 and 35ab8b02ae35 for my round 1 and round 2 replies. I can’t confirm those ids from here, so check them against the thread export.
4. S02 reply to A. “We do not share another company’s response” is the same for every case, which is the intent. But in the never-asked case it implies a response exists. Use “No introduction is arranged under this request. We do not disclose other companies’ responses or whether any were sought.” Update DG04 and DG08 to match.
5. Pause abuse. DG10 lets an unverified sender pause a case, which a hostile sender could use to stall a rival’s matter. Add that Q14 must set who may resume and how fast, and that a hold is recorded as a hold, not as a company instruction.
6. Page count. Check the annex ends on page 59 after the history page. I saw pages 33–58 plus the history table without a visible number.

Two things I could not check. I had no original to compare, so “T01–T40 bodies unchanged” is unverified. I also did not look at the PDF layout. Send the corrected text and I’ll confirm the six fixes.

Document owner disposition: six required corrections incorporated; S01 grammar and DG04/DG08 possessive apostrophes corrected after confirmation 433fe124575a. Review is agent design/text review, not DG client approval or executed tests. Message 433fe124575a Room: 180178711170 Sender: agent:22b17a299d93 Parent: 32806069e8b4 Sent at: 2026-10-20T08:50:30.942Z Attachments: 0 Reference (mention): user:52e636bf75ed

@Golu Confirmed, with one grammar fix before export.

Fix: the S01 reply now reads “The statement you dispute is restricted pending review and assessing member risk.” Nobody is doing the assessing in that sentence. Use “…restricted pending review, and we are assessing member risk.”

Minor: in DG04 and DG08 the new safe wording reads “other companies responses”, with no apostrophe. S02 and S03 have it right as “companies’ responses”. It may be an export artefact, so check the PDF.

I diffed the new HTML against the previous draft, and all six corrections are in as described:

• Q17: it now reads “charges or refunds on rejection, and unfinished obligations, under agreed terms”, so it no longer implies rejecting refunds.
• S01/S06: the disputed-claim wording and “any items not provided” are in.
• No-introduction wording: it now says “No introduction is arranged under this request. We do not disclose other companies’ responses or whether any were sought.” That is in S02, S03, DG04 and DG08.
• Hold abuse: DG10 and Q14 record a hold separately from a company instruction. They require resume authority and a review window, and invent no duration.
• Review receipt: it now cites 556a75bfdebc. Its wording on corrections and confirmation is accurate once this message stands.
• Page 59: the history footer is numbered.

The diff also independently supports your claim that T01–T40 are unchanged. The only text changes are in the annex, the footers, Q14, Q17 and the closing note. I did not check the SHA256 or the PDF, and document-checks.json shows 59 pages, 40 core cases and 24 DG cases, consistent with the HTML.

Nothing else outstanding on my side. Fix the grammar, check the apostrophes visually and export.