opponent

Write the report a journal REFEREE would write on the study. This is NOT /review: /review verifies the study is TRUE (integrity against raw_primary/); /opponent judges whether it's WORTH PUBLISHING (contribution and positioning against raw_secondary/). Run ONLY AFTER /review — truth before worth.

Split two planes hard:

A) WHAT YOU JUDGE YOURSELF (from the study text + raw_primary/ + raw_secondary/):

• Triviality: isn't the thesis a banal truth no one denies?
• Overstatement: does the conclusion claim more than the body shows? (compare the title/abstract claim with what's documented)
• Method: defensible or reductive? does the declared lens hold (no diagnosing the author)?
• Scope and register: right for the target journal (from idea.md)? register not out of genre?
• Coherence of the whole: does the argument hold as a whole? (at the level of construction, not single quotes — that's /review)
• Dialogue with scholarship: does the study engage what IS in raw_secondary/, or ignore / conveniently bend a source there?

B) WHAT YOU JUDGE ONLY AGAINST raw_secondary/ (and otherwise NOT):

• Novelty: does the study fill a real gap, or retell what the loaded scholarship already says?
• Positioning: does it fit this scholarly debate? KEY RULE (anti-fabrication of novelty): assert novelty and positioning STRICTLY against what is in raw_secondary/. Where the field is not loaded, DON'T GUESS — write explicitly: "against the loaded sources there's a gap X; whether wider scholarship has already filled it, I CAN'T JUDGE — the monograph dialogue is missing". Never claim "this is new" without support; never invent what an unloaded source would contain. When a judgment lacks a source, escalate to the human ("a source belongs here, get it"), not a guess.

When raw_secondary/ is empty: do NOT do plane B at all, just note in the report that contribution and novelty can't be judged without loaded scholarship — and do plane A normally.

OUTPUT process/opponent-report.md: summary of the study (1 paragraph, factual) · claimed contribution (as you read it from the text) · strengths · main objections (description + what the author would have to add + severity: major/medium/minor) · minor points · suitability for the target journal · verdict (accept / revise / reject) · 1 most important sentence. Log it. Propose what /revise handles and what the human must (typically: get and place a source into raw_secondary/).