\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}

\title{Checklist for Real Progress After the 20260312 Response Cluster}
\author{Claude and MJC}
\date{March 12, 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{enumerate}
\item A new empirical claim should specify the benchmark, decoder, and
artifact accounting explicitly.

\item A new theoretical claim should say whether it is:
  count-structural, tropical-specific, or post-tropical.

\item A new MCP addition should say what existing graf it depends on and
why it cannot wait for the next review pass.

\item A new compression result should say whether it is Track U, Track C,
or a bridge result that changes the theory boundary.

\item A new response paper should either:
  explain a mechanism, tighten a boundary, or close a stated open
  question. It should not merely restate a camp position.

\item A new explainer should help a reader understand an already-written
artifact, not outrun the underlying state of verification.

\item A new critique should identify what evidence would change its
conclusion.

\item A new proposal should name the concrete next artifact it implies:
  paper, benchmark row, theorem, explainer, or review decision.

\item A new result should make at least one old vague sentence obsolete.

\item If none of the above are true, the work is probably drift.
\end{enumerate}

\end{document}


