{ "schema_version": "1.1.0", "release": "0.3.7", "record_sha256": "05d5144501fd073e2f6aba3d4af90a0e2a82d3399a09b935edcc37b0d9f2e83f", "records": [ { "id": "CLM-001", "source_id": "SRC-001", "study_id": "STU-001", "title": "An interfacial electronic state", "assertion": "Spectroscopy supports hybridization between substrate conduction states and Yb orbitals; this is a fundamental electronic result.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-026-01332-5", "source_version": "Published article, 6 October 2026; retrieved 13 October 2026", "locator": "Results, Figs. 2–3; Methods: Sample preparation and Experiments", "method": "ARPES, supported by STM and DFT", "environment": "Prepared YbCu2/Cu(111) solid interface", "conditions": [ "Sputtered/annealed Cu; Yb deposition at 650 K.", "Key ARPES maps at 7 K; STM at 80 K in ultrahigh vacuum." ], "comparator": "Clean Cu(111); layer-resolved calculations.", "result": "Interfacial and intralayer heavy-fermion states distinguished.", "value": null, "units": null, "denominator": null, "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive within tested regime", "uncertainty": "No water exposure, droplet mass or Weatherhill application established.", "reading_depth": "selected main text and supplement", "access_limitation": "Raw datasets and a complete supplementary review are outstanding.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "ARPES, STM and calculations belong to one publication; do not count methods as replications.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-002", "source_id": "SRC-001", "study_id": "STU-001", "title": "Temperature belongs to the state", "assertion": "The cited coherence temperature concerns the intralayer 2D state; it is not a measured universal cutoff for the interface.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-026-01332-5", "source_version": "Published article, 6 October 2026; retrieved 13 October 2026", "locator": "Results, Fig. 4; Supplementary Note 5, Fig. S5", "method": "Temperature-dependent ARPES", "environment": "Same prepared solid interface", "conditions": [ "Supplement Fig. S5 spans 6–80 K." ], "comparator": "C1 versus C2 momentum trends.", "result": "Intralayer coherence temperature; interfacial temperature dependence differs.", "value": 30, "units": "K", "denominator": "Intralayer electronic state", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "state-specific", "uncertainty": "Interfacial transition temperature not assigned here.", "reading_depth": "selected main text and supplement", "access_limitation": "Raw datasets and a complete supplementary review are outstanding.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "ARPES, STM and calculations belong to one publication; do not count methods as replications.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-001" ] }, { "id": "CLM-003", "source_id": "SRC-002", "study_id": "STU-002", "title": "The monitored sites collected little water", "assertion": "Santa Rosa observations show poor collection at the tested locations.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537058/full", "source_version": "Published HTML, 20 February 2025", "locator": "Sections 3.1–3.2; Table 1; 4.2.1–4.2.2 and Fig. 6", "method": "One-square-metre double Raschel SFCs; ten-minute logging", "environment": "Low/High Santa Rosa, Alto Hospicio", "conditions": [ "Low: 572 m; High: 683 m ASL.", "Table 1: Low Sep 2023–Oct 2024; High Oct 2023–Oct 2024." ], "comparator": "Two sites; no randomized intervention.", "result": "High-site observed bound is <0.2 L/m²/day in section 3.2 but <0.1 in 4.2.2; Low is reported null. Section 4.2.1 reports a June peak monthly total of 2.5 L/m².", "value": null, "units": "L/m²/day; L/m²/month", "denominator": "Collector mesh area; daily rate and monthly total are distinct", "result_state": "adverse", "result_direction": "low/near-null", "uncertainty": "The paired local modeled bound also differs: <1 L/m²/day in 3.2 versus <0.2 in 4.2.2. Definitions/averaging need the underlying series; no bound is selected for numerical decisions and no annual measured yield is reconstructed.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Raw monitoring series, complete calibration record and AMARU companion methods not audited.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Low and High Santa Rosa share regional weather; model comparison uses these observations.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-002" ] }, { "id": "CLM-004", "source_id": "SRC-002", "study_id": "STU-003", "title": "Regional potential is a model", "assertion": "The regional daily yield used in the planning example is modeled, not measured urban production.", "evidence_type": "model", "source_url": "https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537058/full", "source_version": "Published HTML, 20 February 2025", "locator": "Section 3.2; Figs. 8–9; section 5.1 and Conclusion", "method": "AMARU with satellite/topographic constraints", "environment": "Higher-elevation areas surrounding Alto Hospicio", "conditions": [ "2018 airport/Alto Patache meteorology; 25% efficiency assumption." ], "comparator": "Alto Patache calibration and Santa Rosa comparison.", "result": "Illustrative modeled annual-average daily rate.", "value": 2.5, "units": "L/m²/day", "denominator": "SFC mesh area; modeled daily rate averaged over a year", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "modeled potential", "uncertainty": "Transfer from a site 65 km away remains uncertain; installation and storage forecasts need site data.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Raw monitoring series, complete calibration record and AMARU companion methods not audited.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "AMARU uses 2018 airport/Alto Patache inputs and is compared with Santa Rosa observations.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-002" ] }, { "id": "CLM-005", "source_id": "SRC-003", "study_id": "STU-004", "title": "A simulation identifies a candidate face", "assertion": "The v4 model favors microcline (110) as an ice-nucleating template with initially cubic-rich clusters.", "evidence_type": "model", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2511.13402v4", "source_version": "arXiv:2511.13402v4, 25 June 2026; first posted 17 November 2025", "locator": "v4 Results: seeding and Fig. 3; Conclusions; Methods", "method": "SCAN-trained machine-learning potential; enhanced sampling and seeded MD", "environment": "Hydroxylated, flat model surfaces in water", "conditions": [ "Multiple crystallographic terminations compared.", "Model melting point 308 K; results expressed as supercooling." ], "comparator": "Other modeled faces/terminations.", "result": "A mechanistic prediction for targeted experimental comparison.", "value": null, "units": null, "denominator": "Simulation trajectories and critical clusters", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive modeled", "uncertainty": "Model melting point is not an experimental water phase boundary; cubic-rich nuclei do not redefine bulk equilibrium ice.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Supplementary calculations and earlier version text not reviewed or compared.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "All arXiv versions are one work, not new experiments.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-006", "source_id": "SRC-004", "study_id": "STU-005", "title": "Terraces nucleate in a different regime", "assertion": "Microcline (001) terrace nucleation occurs in cryogenic vapor deposition; sanidine shows a stronger step-edge preference.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-76548-7", "source_version": "Published article, 25 August 2026", "locator": "Results, Figs. 2–4; Methods: AFM experiments", "method": "In-situ dynamic AFM; repeated deposition/desorption", "environment": "Cleaved (001) microcline and sanidine in UHV", "conditions": [ "Samples degassed, cleaved in situ; measured holder temperature 145 K.", "Microcline water-vapor saturation ratio approximately 2–5." ], "comparator": "Sanidine (001); random spatial-distribution reference.", "result": "Ice appears at both steps and bare microcline terraces.", "value": null, "units": null, "denominator": "Observed nucleation positions; repeated surface cycles", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive, regime-specific", "uncertainty": "Actual surface may be warmer than holder. Source data/supplement not reanalysed; not an atmospheric powder replication.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Supplementary results and source data have not been independently audited.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Repeated deposition/desorption on a surface does not establish independent crystals.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-007", "source_id": "SRC-005", "study_id": "STU-006", "title": "Powders add composition and microtexture", "assertion": "Six feldspar powders show differing freezing spectra despite similar warm onset in concentrated suspensions.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/5635/2026/acp-26-5635-2026.html", "source_version": "Published article, 24 April 2026", "locator": "Abstract; Experimental sections 2.1–2.4", "method": "TINA immersion-freezing assay", "environment": "Milled natural perthitic/anti-perthitic powders", "conditions": [ "3 µL droplets; cooling 0 to −30 °C at 1 °C/min.", "96 droplets per concentration; triplicate independent batches reported." ], "comparator": "Pure-water controls; concentrations and mineral compositions.", "result": "Texture/composition associations merit matched comparisons.", "value": null, "units": null, "denominator": "Droplets nested in prepared batches; no independent total derived", "result_state": "mixed", "result_direction": "heterogeneous", "uncertainty": "Mineralogy, accessible surface and concentration co-vary; this does not isolate crystal-face causation.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Supplement and complete freezing spectra not reanalysed.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Triplicate batches reported; wells within each batch are nested measurements.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-008", "source_id": "SRC-006", "study_id": "STU-007", "title": "Optical recovery, with unresolved endpoints", "assertion": "The repository manuscript reports faster chamber optical recovery for selected acoustic frequencies.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/389759/2/389759.pdf", "source_version": "Glasgow repository manuscript 389759/2; PDF metadata 10 August 2026", "locator": "Manuscript Abstract; experimental setup/results pp. 4–5, Figs. 2–5", "method": "Received optical power; derived 835 nm attenuation and 2% contrast-range estimate, not standard photometric MOR", "environment": "1 m chamber; 1.2 m optical link", "conditions": [ "835 nm light; 115 dB SPL; fans stop before acoustic exposure." ], "comparator": "No acoustics; 50, 450 and 1200 Hz.", "result": "Abstract: 180→11 dB/km at 450 Hz in 7 min of acoustic action. Results/Fig. 5 describe an initial peak near 300 dB/km and a minimum of 8.5 dB/km after clearing; time and endpoint definitions remain unreconciled.", "value": null, "units": "dB/km", "denominator": "Derived path-normalized attenuation, not water delivered", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive report; numerical discrepancy unresolved", "uncertainty": "Endpoints/time origins not reconciled. Unopened repeats accumulated humidity; vibration can perturb optics.", "reading_depth": "selected manuscript text and figures", "access_limitation": "Journal-version text not compared. Abstract/result time origins and attenuation endpoints remain unreconciled.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Sequential repeats used an unopened chamber; humidity accumulation reported.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-003" ] }, { "id": "CLM-009", "source_id": "SRC-007", "study_id": "STU-008", "title": "Droplet response inside a chamber", "assertion": "The authors report droplet-size responses that depend on frequency and sound level.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.972648/full", "source_version": "Published HTML, 30 September 2022", "locator": "Abstract; Methods sections 2.1–2.3", "method": "Laser particle sizing and acoustic exposure", "environment": "Cylindrical chamber at 20 °C", "conditions": [ "30–280 Hz; 70–130 dB." ], "comparator": "With versus without acoustic action.", "result": "Reported response thresholds support further metrology review, not rainfall efficacy.", "value": null, "units": null, "denominator": "Size-distribution measurements; independent runs unresolved", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive report", "uncertainty": "Abstract reports 1,680 sets; Methods 2.3 reports 840 groups and >300,000 readings. Their accounting relationship is unresolved; none is accepted as independent n.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Run allocation, independent preparations, serial dependence and the relation between abstract sets and methods groups are unresolved.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Reported groups/readings are not an established independent sample size. Shared authors with SRC-008 do not prove shared data.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-005" ] }, { "id": "CLM-010", "source_id": "SRC-008", "study_id": "STU-009", "title": "Rainfall attribution remains unresolved", "assertion": "Field observations cannot fully separate acoustic response from naturally changing precipitation.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/4/993", "source_version": "Published article, February 2023", "locator": "Section 3.1; Conclusions (i)–(iii) and final paragraph", "method": "Radar, radiometer, disdrometer and rain-gauge monitoring", "environment": "Source region of the Yellow River; monsoon precipitation", "conditions": [ "Forty-minute before/during/after windows described." ], "comparator": "Allocation procedure described; adequate randomized comparison evidence not established here.", "result": "No systematic cloud-system change; local droplet/rain variations reported.", "value": null, "units": "Qualitative", "denominator": null, "result_state": "inconclusive", "result_direction": "mixed/inconclusive", "uncertainty": "Authors call for more randomized comparisons; wind and terrain affect observations.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Full allocation history and independence from related field reports not resolved; supplement not reviewed.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Overlap with earlier Shi field publications unverified; no independent-study total.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-011", "source_id": "SRC-009", "study_id": "STU-010", "title": "A bounded collector lead", "assertion": "Publisher excerpts report improved laboratory collection from a spiral/fractal-inspired structure with surface modification.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021979724030029", "source_version": "JCIS 683, Part 2 (2025), 39–48; PMID 39721406", "locator": "Publisher-indexed Abstract and Conclusions; JCIS 683 Pt 2, 39–48", "method": "Collection-rate measurement; complete method unavailable", "environment": "Laboratory; exact fog-flow conditions unknown", "conditions": [], "comparator": "Authors’ equivalent plane and unmodified structure; matching/area definitions unresolved.", "result": "Abstract reports up to 4.53× the plane and 1.81× the unmodified structure; headline maximum is unverified for design use.", "value": 0.29, "units": "g/min/cm²", "denominator": null, "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "positive attributed laboratory report", "uncertainty": "Coating, geometric dimensions, projected versus actual area, replication and delivery-to-storage losses unknown.", "reading_depth": "publisher-indexed abstract and excerpts", "access_limitation": "Complete methods and supplements were unavailable. The collection area, geometry, surface treatment and independent sample count remain unverified.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Relationship to SSRN manuscript not checked; distinct from the 2021 leaf-skeleton paper.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-004" ] }, { "id": "CLM-012", "source_id": "SRC-010", "study_id": "STU-011", "title": "A detectable enhancement was absent", "assertion": "Flat neat water showed no detectable evaporation enhancement under the tested visible illumination.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13598155/", "source_version": "Published article, 14 September 2026", "locator": "Results: Macroscopic evaporation; Fig. 2; Methods", "method": "Confocal interface-height tracking; supporting HD-SFG", "environment": "Milli-Q water, approximately 22.1 °C", "conditions": [ "450/532/635 nm; about 1000 W/m²; p-polarized, 45° incidence.", "Dry <0.1% RH and ambient ~27–36% RH." ], "comparator": "Paired 30-minute off/on/off windows.", "result": "No detected change; main text reports approximately 4.8% relative slope detection limit.", "value": null, "units": "Relative change", "denominator": "Evaporation slope normalized to dark baseline", "result_state": "null", "result_direction": "null within sensitivity", "uncertainty": "Not proof of zero effect or a universal statement about porous media; SI/raw-data audit remains outstanding.", "reading_depth": "selected main text", "access_limitation": "Supplement download returned challenge HTML, not a PDF. Raw data and independent preparations not audited.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Light-off/on/off windows on one sample are paired measurements, not independent samples.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-013", "source_id": "SRC-011", "study_id": "STU-012", "title": "Small droplets responded to charge", "assertion": "Negative charge injection increased the reported mass concentration in the 1.1 µm droplet bin by 95.3% during one natural-fog event.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/105035/9/PhysRevResearch.4.L022050.pdf", "source_version": "Published article, 31 May 2022", "locator": "Results, pp. L022050-3–4; Fig. 4, p. L022050-5; Table I", "method": "LOAC size distributions during alternating emitter-on/off windows; inner five minutes used to limit clock-drift effects.", "environment": "Sonning Farm, Reading, UK; natural fog on 15–16 March 2020", "conditions": [ "Four negative corona emitters; combined nominal current −2 nA.", "Ten-minute switching windows; detailed event drawn from a longer campaign." ], "comparator": "Emitter-off size-bin mass concentration during fog.", "result": "Bin-specific median mass-concentration comparison in Fig. 4; the abstract rounds the diameter to 1 µm.", "value": 95.3, "units": "%", "denominator": "Increase relative to emitter-off mass concentration in the 1.1 µm size bin", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "One event and one size bin; this is not a total-water, visibility or harvested-water gain. Fig. 4 shows bootstrapped off-condition median intervals, not an interval on this percentage.", "reading_depth": "main text and figures", "access_limitation": "Supplement and raw data not reviewed; no independent reanalysis.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "One detailed fog event; within-event scans and cycles are not independent field replications.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-014", "source_id": "SRC-012", "study_id": "STU-013", "title": "A transient optical response from a drone", "assertion": "Charge release during the fog flight was followed by an approximately 2% maximum increase in reflected light.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/107287/8/Geophysical%20Research%20Letters%20-%202022%20-%20Harrison%20-%20Ionic%20Charge%20Emission%20Into%20Fog%20From%20a%20Remotely%20Piloted%20Aircraft.pdf", "source_version": "Published article, 5 October 2022", "locator": "Table 1; Sections 3–4; Figs. 3–4", "method": "Downward photodiode sampled reflected solar radiation during repeated charge sequences from a circling remotely piloted aircraft.", "environment": "UK field flights in February–March 2021; the fog flight occurred on 27 February", "conditions": [ "Aircraft circled at about 20 m height.", "Positive, negative and bipolar emission sequences; nominal emitter currents were not accurately balanced." ], "comparator": "Pre-activation light level and non-fog flights.", "result": "Maximum response was delayed by about 25 seconds; the paper relates roughly 0.5 W/m² to a 31 W/m² background.", "value": 2, "units": "approximately %", "denominator": "Reflected-light change relative to the background light level", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "One fog flight with repeated sequences; reflectivity is not transmission, meteorological visibility, water collection or rainfall.", "reading_depth": "main text and figures", "access_limitation": "Supplement and raw time series not reviewed; charge currents were not accurately balanced in the experiment.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "One fog flight plus non-fog comparison flights; repeated charge sequences are nested within flights.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-015", "source_id": "SRC-013", "study_id": "STU-014", "title": "The original Oman estimate has a specific statistic", "assertion": "The original Oman working paper reports positive rainfall attribution, with a 16.23% bootstrap mean in its headline analysis.", "evidence_type": "model", "source_url": "https://documents.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/%40web/%40inf/%40math/documents/doc/uow270990.pdf", "source_version": "NIASRA Working Paper 21-21 (2021), predecessor to the 2022 journal article", "locator": "NIASRA Working Paper 21-21, Section 5; Tables 4–5, manuscript p. 39 (PDF p. 40)", "method": "Mixed-model attribution and bootstrap inference applied to positive-rainfall observations from the ionizer trial.", "environment": "Hajar Mountains, Oman; 2013–2018 ionization trial", "conditions": [ "Daily randomized on/off operating schedule; exposure assigned using wind-dependent downwind corridors.", "4,168 downwind gauge-day observations with positive rainfall in the headline model." ], "comparator": "Estimated natural rainfall without ionizer influence, constructed statistically.", "result": "Table 5 gives a bootstrap mean of 16.23%, with 2.5th–97.5th percentiles of 10.10–23.09%; these are not a directly measured regional rainfall gain.", "value": 16.23, "units": "% (bootstrap mean)", "denominator": "Attributed rainfall as a percentage of estimated natural rainfall", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "Working-paper version checked; final-journal equivalence remains unverified. A bootstrap mean is not directly comparable to the reanalysis point estimate.", "reading_depth": "selected original manuscript text and tables", "access_limitation": "Published journal full text unavailable in this check. Working-paper and final-journal equivalence has not been established; underlying trial data not reanalyzed.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Same Oman 2013–2018 trial data and overlapping authorship. The 2026 analysis is not an independent field replication.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-006" ] }, { "id": "CLM-016", "source_id": "SRC-014", "study_id": "STU-014", "title": "Reanalysis reduces the estimated attribution", "assertion": "The 2026 reanalysis estimates 6.68% attribution, compared with 12.52% from the earlier estimator applied within the same analysis.", "evidence_type": "model", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.21991v1", "source_version": "arXiv v1, 24 July 2026; preprint, not journal peer reviewed", "locator": "arXiv v1, Section 2; Section 5 pp. 13–14; Table 3 p. 15; Discussion", "method": "Observation-specific adjustment for back-transformation bias; PREB bootstrap uncertainty for a linear mixed model.", "environment": "Reanalysis of the same Oman 2013–2018 trial", "conditions": [ "4,168 positive-rainfall downwind gauge-day observations.", "Gauge-day observations are clustered within days; exposure and natural rainfall depend on the statistical model." ], "comparator": "Earlier attribution estimator recomputed on the same analysis data.", "result": "Point estimate 6.68%; bootstrap 95% interval 2.21–12.88%. Both estimators indicate a positive effect under the model. Table 3 separately lists a 7.36% bootstrap mean for the new estimator.", "value": 6.68, "units": "% (point estimate)", "denominator": "Attributed rainfall divided by modeled natural rainfall over the analyzed positive-rainfall observations", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "A preprint reanalysis with overlapping authorship, not an independent trial or a guaranteed regional gain. Spatial dependence and model misspecification remain open sensitivity questions.", "reading_depth": "selected main text and tables", "access_limitation": "Historical trial data not independently reanalyzed; spatial dependence and model misspecification remain limitations discussed by the authors.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Same Oman 2013–2018 trial data and overlapping authorship. The 2026 analysis is not an independent field replication.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-006" ] }, { "id": "CLM-017", "source_id": "SRC-016", "study_id": "STU-015", "title": "A surface stayed cooler in direct sun", "assertion": "A photonic surface stayed 4.9 °C below ambient air temperature during the reported midday interval in direct sunlight.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://web.stanford.edu/group/fan/publication/Raman_Nature_515_540_2014.pdf", "source_version": "Published Nature article, 27 November 2014, with Methods and Extended Data", "locator": "Main text p. 542; Fig. 3; Methods: outdoor thermal measurement", "method": "Multilayer radiative emitter with a reflective solar response, measured by resistance temperature detectors inside a wind-shielded rooftop apparatus.", "environment": "Stanford, California; clear winter day", "conditions": [ "13:00–14:00 local time; solar irradiance 800–870 W/m².", "An infrared-transparent film and insulated air pocket limited nonradiative heat gains." ], "comparator": "Shaded ambient-air temperature; aluminium and black-paint samples in equivalent apparatus.", "result": "Reported temperature difference 4.9 ± 0.15 °C; Methods state ±0.15 °C sensor accuracy. This is not a confidence interval from independent rooftop replications.", "value": 4.9, "units": "°C below ambient", "denominator": "Ambient-air temperature minus sample temperature", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "lower surface temperature than ambient", "uncertainty": "Cooling was measured, not water production. Condensation also needs the surface below the dew point and sufficient heat rejection during condensation.", "reading_depth": "main result and methods", "access_limitation": "Raw data and independent sample hierarchy not audited. Energy-saving projections are outside this case.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Continuous temperature readings in one illustrated rooftop run are not independent devices or sites.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [] }, { "id": "CLM-018", "source_id": "SRC-017", "study_id": "STU-016", "title": "Day-and-night condensation in a humid chamber", "assertion": "A 24-hour rooftop chamber run averaged 19.3 g/m²/h of condensation, equivalent to about 0.46 L/m² over that run.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/", "source_version": "Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials", "locator": "Main Fig. 3; Supplement: Procedure for dew harvesting experiments, Table S1 (ETH PDF p. 26)", "method": "Balance measured condensate mass on the cooled emitter; chamber humidity maintained by salt solutions.", "environment": "ETH Zurich rooftop; 26–27 August 2019; controlled-humidity chamber", "conditions": [ "High relative humidity above 90%, maintained inside the chamber; no fog required.", "24 hours starting 09:44; mean solar irradiance 273 W/m² in Table S1." ], "comparator": "Elapsed-time mass measurement; this run did not directly compare collected water with an ordinary dew collector.", "result": "Table S1 reports 19.3 g/m²/h. Conversion: 19.3 × 24 = 463.2 g/m², approximately 0.463 L/m² using water density ≈1 kg/L. This is condenser-area normalization and mass formed on the surface.", "value": 19.3, "units": "g/m²/h", "denominator": "Condensed mass per emitter area per hour, averaged over the measured 24 hours", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "Humidity was controlled; this is not an ambient-air daily yield or a measurement of water drained into a reservoir. Do not extrapolate the run to annual output.", "reading_depth": "main results and supplementary methods", "access_limitation": "Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "Table S1 and Fig. 3 describe condensation runs; the 24-hour integration is not 24 independent tests.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-007" ] }, { "id": "CLM-019", "source_id": "SRC-017", "study_id": "STU-017", "title": "Ambient air also supplied collected condensate", "assertion": "A separate open-air test collected passively removed condensate through the night and into the following day.", "evidence_type": "observation", "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/", "source_version": "Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials", "locator": "Supplement: Proof-of-concept outdoor experiments; Fig. S12C–D (ETH PDF p. 24)", "method": "Coated underside exposed to ambient humid air; a dish beneath it received self-removed water.", "environment": "ETH Zurich rooftop; 14 October 2020, 17:00 to 15 October, 11:00", "conditions": [ "18-hour run; mean ambient relative humidity 83%.", "Condenser was exposed through an opening in the supporting box; no supplied fog." ], "comparator": "Qualitative proof of collection in ambient air, not a matched comparative-yield trial.", "result": "The supplement shows collected condensate from the 18-hour ambient run; no daily yield is inferred here.", "value": null, "units": "collected condensate", "denominator": "No area-normalized yield extracted for this proof-of-concept run", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "An 18-hour demonstration does not establish a 24-hour ambient yield, climatic reliability or drinkability.", "reading_depth": "main results and supplementary methods", "access_limitation": "Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "The 18-hour ambient run differs from the controlled-humidity runs; both belong to the same publication.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-007" ] }, { "id": "CLM-020", "source_id": "SRC-017", "study_id": "STU-018", "title": "The collector comparison is calculated potential", "assertion": "At an assumed 90% relative humidity, the paper calculates 85% more potential dew than OPUR foil from measured cooling performance.", "evidence_type": "model", "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/", "source_version": "Published article, 23 June 2021, and ETH supplementary materials", "locator": "Main text: Heat flux analysis and atmospheric radiation shield design; Fig. 2F–G", "method": "Measured subcooling with condensation suppressed is converted to theoretically achievable dew using the heat balance and assumed humidity.", "environment": "Rooftop cooling measurements used as inputs to a dew-potential calculation", "conditions": [ "Constant relative humidity of 90% for this comparison.", "Underlying Fig. 2 measurements prevented condensation; latent heat had to be modeled." ], "comparator": "OPUR dew-collection foil under the same comparison framework.", "result": "85% greater calculated condensate potential at 90% RH; the comparison is not measured collected-water output.", "value": 85, "units": "% calculated increase", "denominator": "Calculated dew potential relative to OPUR foil at assumed 90% RH", "result_state": "positive", "result_direction": "increase in the stated quantity", "uncertainty": "The advantage is modeled from cooling traces. It does not show 85% more water collected in an outdoor head-to-head trial.", "reading_depth": "main results and supplementary methods", "access_limitation": "Raw data not reanalyzed. Chamber mass increase, modeled potential and ambient condensate collection are different measurements.", "reviewer": "Codex assisted extraction; no independent scientific sign-off", "review_date": "2026-10-13", "independence": "The Fig. 2 comparison is calculated from subcooling, with condensation suppressed in the underlying measurement; it is not another water-collection experiment.", "decision_use": false, "correction_ids": [ "COR-007" ] } ] }